Punished with a baby

I now know what Barack Obama was thinking when he said he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" if they "ma[d]e a mistake" and had premarital sex.

How sad that he surely had his own tribe, liberals, in mind, who sure know how to mete punishment with vicious aplomb in such case.

palin family.jpgThanks to a soap opera script on Daily Kos that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with now four-month-old son Trig to cover for his real mother, her 17-year-old daughter Bristol, the Palin family was forced to announce today that unmarried Bristol is five months pregnant.

The announcement was wonderful, in sharp contrast to Obama's thought of his own grandchild who might be conceived in a similar situation...

Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family.

But the Left wants to make sure any girl in a similar situation aborts. Alternet has already got the long knives out, counting the days until Palin is off the McCain ticket and his judgment in selecting her:

... [T]here are legitimate larger questions about what the surprise choice of Palin as McCain's running mate reveals about the GOP presidential candidate's judgment and temperament.

The facts surrounding the Palin family's pregnancies... suggest the AK governor will at the very least have many distractions while she is campaigning this fall, to say nothing of her fitness to become commander-in-chief.

Pregnancies, as in plural. The Left also thinks Palin should have aborted the baby. Until today, it was positive it wasn't hers, a little boy with Down syndrome.

Both babies apparently render Palin unfit for national office.

Speaking of the latter, liberals could go no lower than Alan Colmes did Saturday, with a post he has been shamed into removing after it caused an uproar. But the Internet makes it hard to permanently remove anything. Here 'tis (click to enlarge):

liberaland.jpg

Colmes did not apologize for what he said, just for not being clear enough about what he said. No, he blamed conservatives:

liberaland 2.jpg

Liberals clearly drive mothers to abort. They cannot fathom birthing untimely or imperfect babies.


Comments:

Ok, I don't know who the hell (pardonez moi mon francais!) this cracker-jack Alan Colmes is, but he knows NOTHING about pregnancy and labour.
My water broke with my third pregnancy and my doctor did not have me go to the hospital. He did a culture to check for infection (as he had done an internal and I had been in labour for 5 or 6 hours) and then sent me home to wait for labour to begin on it's own. I was 4 weeks early.

Just because a woman's water breaks doesn't mean she's gonna go into labour and have the baby IMMEDIATELY either! Sheesh! I didn't go into labour until 48 hours later. And my doctor had patients who went weeks without going into labour, buying the baby a few extra weeks to finish growing and maturing.

And like ACOG is an authority on babies. That's almost laughable now, in light of their proabort policies and stance. It's a wonder ACOG doctors have any patients left at all!

BTW, calling Palin, Princess Mooseburger is just plain nasty. These guys are pigs.

Posted by: Patricia at September 1, 2008 9:43 PM


I just *love* how Alan felt the need to investigate how long it took Mrs. Palin to get to the hospital after her water broke. Excuse me, but WHAT does that have to do with ANYTHING?!? She is a mom who has had five children...I'm pretty sure she knows her body and knows the drill by now. Alan, are you calling into question what she does with *her* body? Why should her unborn child even matter to you--after all, it's her "choice," right? What a load of garbage, Alan. Sean Hannity should ditch you for his own show. You don't help the ratings, anyway.

The fact that Mrs. Palin's pregnancy was even in question should have women everywhere in an uproar. It's sick and disgusting, and frankly, I'd be disgusted if this were done to a liberal female politician as well. The whole tabloid hunt for Bristol's "baby bump" was just ridiculous.

The statement they released was so well-put, and as the sister-in-law of a woman who went through an unplanned pregnancy, I am proud to say that my in-laws rallied around my SIL as well, and it makes all the difference in the world.

Jill, as soon as I heard about this today, I thought of the exact same thing (Obama talking about babies as punishment...and I am struck by the polar opposites in this campaign.

Posted by: Kel at September 1, 2008 9:46 PM


Here's a question that's gnawing at me- If the Palins were so concerned about Bristol's privacy, why did they choose to throw their kid under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so? If they were genuinely concerned about making sure her pregnancy did not become an issue, they could have simply kept her out of the public eye for the next two months. That's what they wanted to do anyway. Instead they decide to quell those "nasty rumors" by dropping the dime on their daughter. They could have simply released Trig's birth records instead, and everyone would have gotten red in the face and slinked away. Something is definitely rotten in the Great White North Territory. This needs to be addressed. The Palin family and the McCain campaign have made it all fair game right from the beginning.

Posted by: merge divide at September 1, 2008 9:48 PM


Ultimately, the focus of this whole kerfuffle shouldn't be on Sarah Palin and her family at all. Her family drama is a side issue.

The fact that all this drama exists, and that John McCain's camp was apparently totally unaware of any of it up until Saturday is the problem. McCain's campaign screwed up. They didn't bother to vet her, and now they're paying the price.

Posted by: geez louise at September 1, 2008 9:51 PM


Just because a woman's water breaks doesn't mean she's gonna go into labour and have the baby IMMEDIATELY either! Sheesh! I didn't go into labour until 48 hours later. And my doctor had patients who went weeks without going into labour, buying the baby a few extra weeks to finish growing and maturing.

Posted by: Patricia at September 1, 2008 9:43 PM
*********************************************

The amniotic fluid is continually replenishing itself. This is why a woman whose water has broken can be put in the hospital and monitored on bedrest for a VERY long time (days) and still have a healthy baby.

My doctor told me to pay attention to my contractions after my water broke, and if they became regular and strong, and longer in duration, to come to the hospital right away. If not, she told me to hang out for about four hours or so before I came to the hospital, which is exactly what I did with my second pregnancy. And even after arriving, it was Pitocin plus twelve more hours before our son was born.

What I want to know is, is THIS what passes for investigative reporting? Is THIS the best they can come up with on Mrs. Palin: "She waited *a long time* to go to the hospital" ??? I can't believe they even bothered to get quotes from OBs for this.

Posted by: Kel at September 1, 2008 9:52 PM


Kel: my doctor did not even send me to the hospital except to have a nonstress test ? on the baby. Everything was fine and he told me to go home and wait.
I agree with you - it seems that it's an attempt to paint Palin as a failure at something, anything....
If she can't manage her family then how can she manage the country etc....

Posted by: Patricia at September 1, 2008 9:59 PM


Merge divide,

Didn't you read Jill's post? They had to reveal her pregnancy because the left-wing-facist-smear-merchant-pigs were investigating Palin's daughter, saying she was the one who had Trig.

The left-wing made Palin's daughter an issue, not the McCain campaign.

Posted by: Jasper at September 1, 2008 10:17 PM


Posted by: geez louise at September 1, 2008 9:51 PM

You need to read a little more. Palin DID tell McCain before he made his decision. He and his advisors told her that her personal life would come under harsh attack that she could not prepare herself for, and after a family decision, she said she would accept if offered the position. Please get over yourself.

As for Alan, the guy is unable to carry on even the slightest meaningful conversation as he continually proves on his show. He obviously knows nothing about child birth and a woman's relationship with her doctor.

With my third child my water started leaking early in the morning. I went to the hospital but because they were very busy and I was having no contractions (pain) they asked if I'd mind waiting to be put in a room. I said no problem. 14 hours later I finally got a bed, my doctor was not concerned with infection as I still had a good 10 hours before that was even thought to be a concern.

And if I had the choice between going to MY OWN doctor and some unknown that was a quack for all I knew, take a guess at what I would do.

Posted by: Kristen at September 1, 2008 10:20 PM


GL: "The fact that all this drama exists, and that John McCain's camp was apparently totally unaware of any of it up until Saturday is the problem. McCain's campaign screwed up. They didn't bother to vet her, and now they're paying the price."

Actually McCain knew about it. He didnt find it relevant to her role as a VP of the United States, as most Americans Im sure also find it.

Here is a great article about it all...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837862-1,00.html


Posted by: Oliver at September 1, 2008 10:23 PM


Jill:

The Libs are being exposed for all their vileness in support of abortion. They are pushing God to the edge. It's amazing to see Him work.

As I stated in my post of April 17, 2007 on this site, "Since abortion makes no sense to any rationally thinking person, there has to be other reasons for pro-aborts' "death grip" on this so-called "death right"."

It is no secret to me what abortion truly is and why I think it is used as a means to hold political power. I state it again as posted on previous threads as follows:

"You have to realize that pro-deathers are not driven by logic. They are driven by the lust for power, perhaps abortion followers without realizing it, but its leaders and initiators, guilty as hell."

and

"So, when they acknowledge the horror of a baby cooking video, or talk about how bad kicking a dead baby in a bag is, or allowing a baby to die in a toilet in an abortion deathatorium despite the pleas of the mother for the baby's life, they really are acknowledging the horror of abortion since to not do so would be illogical. What they fail to realize is that in doing so, they for a moment remove their masks, and their K-9 fangs show through the sheepskin, scaring even themselves. Does a werewolf know who he is?"

Abortion rights are not about women's rights, they are about power as if the mere possession of such power validates their behavior and rebellion towards God; the ultimate expression of self-righteousness and pride.

Satan tried to steal power from God Himself when he tempted Christ on the mountain, so, we should not be deceived; the outcome was sure. We have a Savior that has been tempted in all things and it is to Him we can go for strength to resist the onslaught of the abortion lie.

Many have fallen to that lie, even Protestant and Catholic Christians. It's time to call them home.

Where are women's right found? In none other than the person of Christ. Mary Magdelene knew this, the Virgin Mary knew this, Martha knew this, countless millions of other women have found this out too, as you know this. Now it is being demonstated to the world that Sarah Palin knows this and not afraid to tell the world.

Catholic and Protestants please wake up. Abortion is not God's will for anyone.

And what woman who has ever lived had more of a justifable reason, according to a Liberal's way of thinking, to abort a baby, than the Virgin Mary? She was very young, was engaged to Joesph, and the people who knew Joseph's character knew he would never have pre-marital sex. She could have been stoned to death. What else does God have to say to us about his heart towards abortion? Had Mary aborted Jesus, she would have singlehandedley destroyed mankind.

I praise God for you and Sarah and all the women who stand for life and give life. Thank you two so much for standing firm.

Posted by: HisMan at September 1, 2008 10:23 PM


Posted by: merge divide at September 1, 2008 9:48 PM

Right, like it wouldn't have come out before the election? What? She'd just be gaining weight? Then you'd accuse them of a cover-up. They just can't win for losing can they.

Posted by: Kristen at September 1, 2008 10:24 PM


"Merge divide"

What a joke. You sure seem like a "merge divider" coming in here to insult Palin's truthful statements about her daughter. You are telling me that as someone who wants to reconcile the two parties that you honestly find her daughter's business of that much import to this election? Clearly you are digging for dirt, scraping to insult Governor Palin. You are not living up to your name very well!!

Posted by: Oliver at September 1, 2008 10:35 PM


1. Gov. Palin has told the media that just a very small amoung of amniotic fluid had leaked before her getting on the plane.

2. Just as abortion is anti-woman (look up the etymology of the word, "rape" and you will find "abduct" or "plunder" which is exactly what an abortionist does) these attacks on Gov. Palin and her daughter are outrageously misogynistic.

Posted by: Arlen Williams at September 1, 2008 10:35 PM


My wife and I have five children. You should have seen the nasty looks and heard the commetns we would get when we took them all grocery shopping with us. Even 'church' people would say negative things. We are a sick culture.

God bless and protect the Palin family, particularly their children and grandchildren.

Posted by: kbhvac at September 1, 2008 10:37 PM


Pro-abortion whore Kyra Phillips (from CNN) attempts to score points for Obama:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/09/01/bennett-live-cnn-rebukes-cnn-exploiting-palins-daughter-score-political

Posted by: Jasper at September 1, 2008 10:46 PM


The sophomoric noise floating on the surface of the campaigns of both candidates seems to occupy most of the blogosphere, especially the comments.

The lack of intellectual rigor in mainstream America is something to behold. The inflation of trivia at the expense of honest consideration of serious issues is ridiculous.

Hisman, good remarks.

It's fascinating how abortion and pro-life issues are suddenly front and center in this campaign. Young Bristol, I don't suppose, appreciates just how catalytic her personal narrative has become of a broader discourse.

There will be no political peace or "unity" (pace Obama) in America as long as the killing of unborn humans persists. Pro-choice folk, unfortunately, seem animated toward deeper levels of hatred by the fact that their despised enemies haven't rolled over and peed for them.

Heh. Like that could happen.

Posted by: rasqual at September 1, 2008 10:52 PM


If you were [truly] Abraham's children, then you would do the works of Abraham [follow his example, do as Abraham did]. But now [instead] you are wanting and seeking to kill Me, a Man Who has told you the truth which I have heard from God. This is not the way Abraham acted. You are doing the works of your [own] father. If God were your Father, you would love Me and respect Me and welcome Me gladly, for I proceeded (came forth) from God [out of His very presence]. I did not even come on My own authority or of My own accord (as self-appointed); but He sent Me. Why do you misunderstand what I say? It is because you are unable to hear what I am saying. [You cannot bear to listen to My message; your ears are shut to My teaching.] You are of your father, the devil, and it is your will to practice the lusts and gratify the desires [which are characteristic] of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a falsehood, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar [himself] and the father of lies and of all that is false.

Posted by: kbhvac at September 1, 2008 10:54 PM


"They didn't bother to vet her, and now they're paying the price."

Are you completely INSANE? The only reason this is an issue at all is that the psychotic far-left decided that Sarah Palin wasn't big enough when she was six months pregnant, so that "PROVED" some kind of ridiculous conspiracy about her covering up her daughter's pregnancy. Why even bother to talk about something like this? Because the far-left is so hateful that they wanted to use something - anything - to try to discredit Palin. Their plan? "Prove" that "Palin LIED!" to protect her daughter, and thus be able to say "Palin is a liar, just like Bush!!" or some similar, equally absurd, unbelievably political bullcrap.

Turns out that it's well-known in Palin's home town that her daughter is pregnant, and that's she's engaged to the father. It wasn't exactly a big family secret, but it also isn't something that you normally would trumpet to the entire world.

Speaking of "vetting", when the hell is someone going to vet that anti-American, baby killing MANIAC on the top of the Democrat Party ticket? Before or after he destroys our nation?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 1, 2008 11:00 PM


John:

So awesome to see you back my friend.

Your passion is contagious.

Posted by: HisMan at September 1, 2008 11:07 PM


Abstinence never fails. Condoms fail. Diaphrams fail. Sex education fails. People fail.

It is an imperfect world, full of imperfect people.

Everyone needs forgiveness.

Posted by: kbhvac at September 1, 2008 11:09 PM


From www.LenMunsil.com:

""JUNO" IN JUNEAU
As a matter of policy the press does not reveal the identities of minors who are involved in criminal activity. Children cannot enter into contracts because they do not have the legal capacity to consent. Medical treatment is confidential and requires parental consent.

But incredibly, today the mainstream media has prominently displayed the full name, photograph and medical condition (pregnancy) of a 17-year-old minor, and some have even tried to score cheap political points -- simply because she is the daughter of a candidate for vice president.

Why? Because it was necessary to respond to completely false and scurrilous accusations that her mother, Gov. Sarah Palin, faked her own pregnancy.

The story should be about phony, scurrilous accusations fueled by Obama supporters. Instead the media is trying to make some point about hypocrisy and abstinence education.

William Bennett on CNN got a little heated in questioning CNN's coverage of this issue, and he was right. And Bill Kristol on Fox News almost throttled Morton Kondracke for suggesting that Palin's daughter's situation demonstrates the failure of abstinence education.

I've experienced this type of coverage -- when I ran for Governor, supporters of one of my opponents committed a felony by illegally paying for a "push poll" to falsely claim I had an illegitimate child. The media made no effort to figure out who committed a crime in the midst of a political campaign. Instead they played up the two-decade old story of an engaged couple in their mid-20s, both college graduates, conceiving a child a month before their wedding - and partly because of that experience, being committed to the pro-life cause and to abstinence education.

Gov. Sarah Palin is not a hypocrite for supporting abstinence education, which is the right policy for the health of children who risk disease and profound emotional distress through underage sex, whether or not a child is conceived.

In the same way, Barack Obama is not a hypocrite for supporting anti-drug efforts even though he used cocaine as a young adult. And if, God forbid, one of his precious children were to experiment with drugs, he would still be right to speak out against drug use and the media would be wrong to focus on the child's indiscretion. The hypocrisy argument is bogus.

Morton Kondracke and Obama supporters should be ashamed of themselves for trying to make an anti-Republican political point at the expense of a child.

To his credit, Barack Obama declared the subject off-limits and promised to fire any member of his campaign who made an issue of it.

But here is a question for the "objective" media -- why are they so much more interested in the private problems of the Republican vice presidential nominee's 17-year-old child than the very public and relevant activities of the Democratic vice presidential nominee's fully grown, 38-year-old son, a Washington lobbyist who successfully gained millions of dollars of "earmarks" for his clients -- with the help of the supposed "change" candidate, Sen. Obama?"

Posted by: HisMan at September 1, 2008 11:12 PM


God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it. There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don't trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God. Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil. They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished. But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to."

Posted by: kbhvac at September 1, 2008 11:17 PM


kbhvac:

I like your style.

Keep fightin' the good fight my friend.

"God's Word will not return to Him void but accomplish the purpose for which it was sent".

Posted by: HisMan at September 1, 2008 11:26 PM


I get the sense that each member of the Palin family has very powerful bonds together. I really think they had already all talked about this and that they are probably glad to make it public at this time. Whereas a person like merge-divide would hide her daughter instead and make her feel like she needed to be ashamed about what she had done. It is just a fundamental difference in some peoples outlook on life.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 1, 2008 11:27 PM


Hey, HisMan. You know the REAL reason why the Democrat Party (misspelling intentional) is so upset about Palin? Because they weren't ready to unleash their slime machine on her. Check this out:

http://www.democrats.org/page/content/thenextcheney

Keep in mind that that is the OFFICIAL website of the Democrat Party, not some fringe, ultra-left loon site. They were all ready to start attacking Cheney's VP pick with sludge, in diametrical opposition to the kind of politics that their nominee CLAIMS to stand for, no matter who it turned out to be. But they left Sarah Palin off the list, so they didn't know what to do!

So they lashed out in all directions, making all kinds of stupid arguments, eg, Palin is inexperienced (yet more experienced than Lord Barry the Obamessiah), Palin is from a small town (thanks for the continued elitism, Obama camp), and Palin is unqualified (misogyny, anyone?).

They have yet to call Palin "The Next Cheney", but I'll be ready to laugh out loud when they do. It'll probably be a few minutes after she kicks Biden's dumb Democrat donkey rear in the debate.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 1, 2008 11:28 PM


"Hey, HisMan. You know the REAL reason why the Democrat Party (misspelling intentional) is so upset about Palin?"

Boooo. You are undermining my assertion that Jill has no idea what that epithet means.....

Posted by: Oliver at September 1, 2008 11:32 PM


Okay so I could understand if people have policy issues with her.


I CAN'T STAND the notion that pregnancy is a disaster and/or makes a woman unfit to do her job.

FEMINISTS, listen to me! Grow a pair of lady balls and get over it!

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 1, 2008 11:36 PM


The McCain Campaign has raised a record 10 million dollars in the 3days since the Palin VP selection.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/01/mccain-campaign-raises-a-record-47-milion-in-august/

Posted by: Jasper at September 1, 2008 11:36 PM


Obviously I'm not going to be able to address every single poster in the forum who responded to my comment.

But to sum up my thoughts on the issue:

1. The Palins legitimized what amounts to low-level rumormongering by answering it with a press conference. If they had to do that, they should have just offered a credible journalist of their choosing the chance to see the medical records. That would have made it go away without the need for dramatic revelations.

2. The fact that Ms. Palin was willing to humiliate her daughter on the national stage demonstrates that she has terrible judgment,and an extremely self-serving attitude.

3. The entire debacle makes the McCain campaign look terribly out-of-control to anyone that hasn't decided on a president.

4. The contention that Ms. Palin's actions and relationships as a mother are not to be analyzed and commented on in the race is invalidated by the heavy-handed attempts to build this candidate's public profile on "family values". She looks increasingly week in that department because of her own actions.

Posted by: merge divide at September 1, 2008 11:39 PM


Oliver, "Democrat Party" is not an epithet. The reason why Democrats get upset when their party is called the "Democrat Party" is that they want to be called "Democratic", so that people will think that they are "democratic" with a small "d", and thus, by implication, that if you are not a member of the "Democratic" Party, you are therefore not "democratic".

These geniuses play the same word games with the word "liberal". Although in modern political context, "liberal" means "left of center", they object to this definition and use others that they feel are more pleasant. And we absolutely know about the word games they play with the word "choice". Holy cow, do they play some Orwellian games with that one.

If I really wanted to use an epithet for "Democrats", I would use "Demoncats", "Dumbocrats", "Democraps", or something else fun like that.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 1, 2008 11:43 PM


Merge Divide,

Another brilliant post dude.

"The fact that Ms. Palin was willing to humiliate her daughter on the national stage demonstrates that she has terrible judgment,and an extremely self-serving attitude."

Who says she was humiliated. Maybe she offered to go public for her mother's sake?

Or heres a thought....maybe because of the investigation, it was close to being released. Keep in mind that her hometown pretty much already knew.

"She looks increasingly week in that department because of her own actions."

She looks weak because her daughter got pregnant at 17 years old and made the grown up decision to keep her child and marry the father? I think it makes Palin look like an amazing mother. Once again, I posit the question...how many abortions has Mrs Obama had to further her own agendas?

Oh but dont listen to reason...continue making your wild inferences!! You rule dude. Were you one of the "anarchists" protesting at the RNC in the face of Gustav destroying store fronts and setting things on fire?

Posted by: Oliver at September 1, 2008 11:46 PM


merge:

1. Everyone in the Palin's home town already knows that the daughter is pregnant. It is not a dramatic revelation.

2. Everyone in the Palin's home town already knows that the daughter is pregnant. Revealing it wasn't a humiliation.

3. McCain knew that Palin's daughter was pregnant before he chose Palin as his VP.

4. You don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 1, 2008 11:47 PM


John,

You know, I was actually not entirely sure why it was an insult to begin with actually. That makes sense though...calling them the "Democrat" Party in order to not compliment them as "democratic."

I also agree that it is a lame one. I also like "Democ-rats."

Posted by: Oliver at September 1, 2008 11:48 PM


"Obviously I'm not going to be able to address every single poster in the forum who responded to my comment."

pick one then.


"The fact that Ms. Palin was willing to humiliate her daughter on the national stage demonstrates that she has terrible judgment,and an extremely self-serving attitude."

No, the left-wing smear merchants are the ones who are trying to humiliate her daughter. It's the opposite of what you said, if Palin were self serving she would have encouraged her daughter to abort. (Like many Democrats have done, Kennedy, Clinton, with their mistresses)

Posted by: Jasper at September 1, 2008 11:50 PM


Merge Divide might be SoMG resurrected.

Beware.

Posted by: HisMan at September 1, 2008 11:56 PM


Sadly how fast some people forget their basic principles.
here is the daughter of somebody who claims to be a moral leader of the highest order
and she commits the ultimate sin, and suddenly teenage fornification is
an admirable and desireable activity.
How about some straigt talk, she is clearly a slut,
and her parents have failed in the most basic task,
to insure their childrens purity.
Stop the execuses.

Posted by: TD Monk at September 1, 2008 11:57 PM


No, Merge Divide is not nearly as inteligent as SoMG...nowhere close.

Posted by: Oliver at September 1, 2008 11:58 PM


TD Monk,

Thats a good outlook to have! Extremely realistic!

Do you then support women and men getting married at age 12? I mean, it would be the most logical outcome.

Our society has tried to outgrow our genetics. We expect our children to remain abstinent, but at the same time keep pushing the "exceptable" age of marriage further and further back. It was 13-14...then it became 18 so that the kids can get out of highschool. THEN it became 22 so that the kids can get their degree! Now its ridiculous to many Americans for someone to get married before they establish their career. How can expect everyone to deny their bodies so long? You may aspire to be so virtuous, but you cannot reasonably expect everyone to. In fact, you cannot reasonably expect most people to. Besides, how can you insult someone for not living up to the perfect ideal Christian? It isnt our job to beat each other down when we make mistakes.

Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2008 12:04 AM


HisMan,
I don't think SoMG is going to make the resurrection , at least without a change of heart and repentance that is.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 12:05 AM


I have been visiting other blogs and the biggest reason people are leaving the Democratic ticket and voting McCain is cause they think he is a liar and can't be trusted. Most of the swing voters actually seem to believe character is even more important than the policies of any political party.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 12:08 AM


with clarification:
I have been visiting other blogs and the biggest reason people are leaving the Democratic ticket and voting McCain is cause they think Obama is a liar and can't be trusted. Most of the swing voters actually seem to believe character is even more important than the policies of any political party.

Posted by: ts at September 2, 2008 12:09 AM


TD Monk, your post is a sin worse than fornication.

By the way, women who have sex with their husbands-to-be are usually not called "sluts". Sorry.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 2, 2008 12:12 AM


"Stop the execuses.

Posted by: TD Monk at September 1, 2008 11:57 PM"

Well TD, if you stop the executions we'll stop the execuses.

Unbelievable.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 12:23 AM


Islamic leaders tied by federal investigators to the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America - including one under active investigation for alleged terror-financing - have recently donated to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign for president, according to Federal Election Commission records reviewed by WND. Read the latest now on WND.com.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73719

Hear ye, hear ye, all you Liberals, this is real news that can affect you, like a nuke....not the mistakes of a 17 year old girl of a VP Candidate.

Hello, hello, hello.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 12:25 AM


with regard to the Post by: The Devil's Monk Sept 1, 2008 11:57 PM

TDM, what do you consider your role to be as part of the Obama team?

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 12:34 AM


YIKES! I was all prepared to come on and comment about this post but am even more repulsed by the comments! SHEESH!
What the heck????
How can anyone not see that Alan Colmes' article was just meant to be a nasty piece? There was no other reason to write what he did other than to try to say that Sarah Palin was a bad mother because she didn't go straight to the hospital. He's an idiot!

As for the mistakes the McCain team made... you know who is saying it was a mistake that Mccain picked Palin? Liberals! They are trying to convince conservatives that they should be upset with McCain. Well, guess what? Not working!

They are grasping at straws and they know it! Sarah Palin is going to shore up any loose ends the Republican ticket had out there and I'll tell you what, as the mother of teenage daughters, she has earned even more of my respect with the graceful way she & her husband are dealing with their daughter's pregnancy.

Sarah Palin scares the liberals WAY more than John McCain ever did. She is a strong, intelligent, stands-by-her-morals woman and she is virtually untouchable.

Posted by: debi b at September 2, 2008 12:35 AM


Sex is always a sin (the ultimate sin) whether you are young or old
about to be married or single,
it is still a sin, you are giving in
to temptation, temptation of the flesh, lust.

For a man at least, lust is always involved in sex
and lust is always a deadly sin.
How about less talk about 'mistakes' or 'forgiveness' or other modern talk show BS
and more talk about Judgement and Sin.

Posted by: TD Monk at September 2, 2008 12:35 AM


Dear ACLU Supporter,

George W. Bush has launched a new assault on birth control and reproductive freedom.

Late last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations that could seriously undermine access to basic reproductive health services -- including birth control and abortion.

Instead of striking a careful balance between individual religious liberty and patients’ access to reproductive health care, the Bush administration has taken patients’ rights and their health care needs out of the equation.

We have less than 30 days to stop these new rules from being enacted. Take a stand now.

The rule leaves open the possibility that -- based on religious beliefs -- institutions and individuals can deny women access to birth control. It also permits individuals to refuse to provide information and counseling about basic heath care services. And it expands existing laws by permitting a wider range of health care professionals to refuse to provide even referrals for abortions.

Act fast to protect access to basic care for the millions of Americans who depend on federally funded health care services.

This far-reaching proposal doesn’t need congressional approval. But, it can’t go forward without allowing for public comment. That’s where you come in.

Tell the Department of Health and Human Services to stop efforts to block women’s access to basic reproductive health services. Submit your comments now.

The public comment period on these insidious regulations is open until September 20.

That’s all the time we have to generate a massive public outcry. Take action now.

At a time when more and more Americans are either uninsured or struggling with the soaring costs of health care, the federal government should be expanding access to important health services, not undermining existing protections or interfering in programs that have successfully provided services for years.

Please act right now. The deadline on public comments is fast approaching, and we have to generate intense opposition to these dangerous regulations. After you take action, please forward this email to your friends and family who care about equal access to health care.

Thanks for standing with us.

Sincerely,

Louise Melling, Director
ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

FOLLOW THIS LINK TO TAKE ACTION NOW AND PROTECT WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!
http://action.aclu.org/hhs_comment

I just got this email. Seems that your chimp in the White House is getting desperate. Way to go, you conservative dogs. Way to ruin life for everyone. Keep preaching your words of ignorance, and keep telling me to go to AA. Like always, no one will ever listen.

The One
The Only
Skinhead Dan

Posted by: Skinhead Dan at September 2, 2008 12:39 AM


TD Monk,

Every single child, with one exception, has done things which their parents have not approved. Whether it be premarital sex (with one's fiance), drugs, alcohol, lapsed church attendance, saying cruel things about other people, or any of the innumerable things that human beings dream up to do to themselves, their bodies, and others, it is a fact of life that no one is without their flaws.

I hate the idea of premarital sex, the frequency of it, the way that progressives would normalise it, but I cannot condemn Bristol Palin. We all fail in what we would do with our lives. The people of character are those who consistently try to avoid doing wrong, and, when having done wrong (best intentions nor good parenting not being prophylactics) do their best to be responsible and just. Bristol is not aborting, which would undoubtedly have saved her reputation and plans for college, but is carrying her child to term, marrying her boyfriend, and will bring up that child - a gift and miracle - with her caring, loving family.

We all screw up. Sarah Palin demonstrated that she is a truly awesome mom when she stated, unequivocally, that she is proud of her daughter. Would we all not want parents who, in the toughest of times, express their deepest love for us?

I, for one, think that a White House full of Palin children would be an awesome thing.

Posted by: theobromophile at September 2, 2008 12:41 AM


Sex isn't the ultimate sin, and in the proper situation is not a sin at all.

Read the Bible, clearly there are worse sins in there than simply sex. And yeah...forgiveness is a big part of the NT. Dang. Never heard anyone like you.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 12:41 AM


Did Joe Biden plagiarize more than once?

Unfortunately for Biden, more revelations of plagiarism followed, distracting him from the Bork hearings. Over the next days, it emerged that Biden had lifted significant portions of speeches from Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey

http://www.slate.com/id/2198543/

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 12:44 AM


Read more of the OT and less of the NT
The OT is where all the important, everlasting and unbreakable rules are.

Posted by: TD Monk at September 2, 2008 12:49 AM


How about less talk about 'mistakes' or 'forgiveness' or other modern talk show BS
and more talk about Judgement and Sin.

Posted by: TD Monk at September 2, 2008 12:35 AM

TDM, you are as phony as a three dollar bill.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 12:58 AM


As the joke went in the 1980s...

Did you hear Joe Biden wrote his autobiography?

It's entitled IACOCCA.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 2, 2008 1:09 AM


You are ludicrous. You would make a good fit in that head-banger monk band that was started up recently. I really wouldn't wish it on anybody but you though. BTW TDM

Jesus Christ is the revelation of all truth and the "Word Made Flesh". All that is in the OT and the NT. If what you preach is not right with Jesus then it's not the truth and it's not right with God. sed libera nos a Malo Amen.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 1:12 AM


This freaking cyber trash like TD Monk is a waste and their comments have no value except so that innocents like pip can be exposed to them in a safe environment and they can be shown for the idiocy they are. Ughhhhh

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 1:19 AM


Posted by: Skinhead Dan Sept 2, 2008 12:39 AM

You wanna kill babies Dan, for now go ahead. But don't try and force your blood orgy on the hands of people of conscience. I would sooner kill a person who tried to force me to kill a babay then kill the baby. You want an abortion, go find and hire a killer. You want a prescription for abortificients, go find a pharmacist willing to sell you one. But don't try and force your freaking dirty lives onto the lives of people of conscience by forcing them to be a party to your choices; and acting as if their lack of participation in said killing is a violation of your "human rights". You are a piece all right.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 1:28 AM



Why is childbirth painfull?
To punish the woman for her sin of having fornicated.
The Lord clearly states so in the garden of eden.

pain and labor are part of God's judgment on sinners (Genesis 3:15-16).

To the woman he said,
"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with pain you will give birth to children.


Christianity teaches us that abstinence,
even in marriage, is the way to salvation.
A woman has to groan in labor to
atone for her sin of marital sex.
When chloroform was discovered by Sir James Simpson
in the early 19th century for use in cases of difficult childbirth,
the church clearly condemned it.

This was a blasphemous attempt
to rebel against the curse that God had laid
upon Eve. Queen Victoria in the late
19th century was criticized heavily
for having used anesthesia, for having gone
against the dictates of the Christian teachings.

Posted by: TD Monk at September 2, 2008 1:29 AM


I don't know y'all, I just hope she really loves the father and isn't just marrying him to "do the right thing"- maybe they were just having fun and aren't really in love? In my opinion it's far worse for a child to grow up in a home where both parents are miserable because they don't want to be married than to have two loving parents who don't live together (and thus actually can get along). Sometimes you just can't make it work, and studies have shown that staying together "for the kids" can do more harm than good. I expect a barrage of comments about the importance of two-parent families, but I'm not willing to fight right now, so don't feel the need. Just wanted to put that out there. I just hope Bristol had a choice in the matter and didn't feel pressured to do so.

Posted by: common at September 2, 2008 1:32 AM


Oh, yeah, it should go without saying that any business can decide what products it will and will not dispense.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 2, 2008 1:54 AM


Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for the 'wayback machine' copy of Alan Colmes original hit piece. I tried to find it but couldn't. What a disgusting piece. Fox should fire that idiot and get a real honest liberal in there.

Posted by: Andy at September 2, 2008 3:00 AM


I just hope Bristol had a choice in the matter and didn't feel pressured to do so.
Posted by: common at September 2, 2008 1:32 AM

cmon common, Decent folk do feel pressure as part of the responsibility of raising a child.
Lasting love is more faithfullness and commitment then it is a "feeling".

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 3:14 AM


Posted by: TD Monk at September 2, 2008 1:29 AM

TDM, You should take your act on the road.....
without access to the Internet

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 3:20 AM


My wife and I have five children. You should have seen the nasty looks and heard the commetns we would get when we took them all grocery shopping with us. Even 'church' people would say negative things. We are a sick culture.

God bless and protect the Palin family, particularly their children and grandchildren.


Posted by: kbhvac at September 1, 2008 10:37 PM

I hear ya!


Has TD Monk posted here before? What a boat load of garbage his posts are. You have a warped view of sex, buddy.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 2, 2008 6:32 AM


TD Monk,

"Why is childbirth painfull?
To punish the woman for her sin of having fornicated.
The Lord clearly states so in the garden of eden.

pain and labor are part of God's judgment on sinners (Genesis 3:15-16).

To the woman he said,
"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with pain you will give birth to children."

Yes, this is true. But you have not shown ho this implies that sex is evil. In fact, it argues the opposite point; that because sex is so good there is now a "price." But nothing about the verses you have quoted imply sex is evil. In fact, if you go back a 2 chapters to Genesis 1:28, you will see that God tells Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. How are they to fulfill God's command? Lest you think this command was "void" after the temptation by the devil, we see the exact same command given in Gen 9:1 to Noah. One could go on and on with verses that support this (where are the quiverfull people?).

"Christianity teaches us that abstinence,
even in marriage, is the way to salvation."

This is almost as false as Pelosi's statement the other day on abortion. Show me either in Christian tradition or the bible where you find that abstinence in marriage is necessary for salvation. Yes there is a passage by Augustine somewhere where he seems to imply that one should only engage in the conjugal act if they are trying to have a child, but that isn't even the same thing.

In fact if what you claim is true, how did Christianity last 2000 years? Wouldn't it just die out like the Shakers (I think it's the Shakers)? Who are some examples of what you would consider the most holy Christians through out the last 2000 years? God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 6:32 AM


"A woman has to groan in labor to
atone for her sin of marital sex."


Funny maybe I never had sex for my second child seeing as I had a 20 minute labour and almost NO pain!

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 6:37 AM



I think liberals had better tread lightly here.
Their sanctimonious chest pounding over Palin's daughter is as laughable as it is hypocritical. There are plenty of parents in this country who have faced and continue to face this situation every day and will relate very strongly to Palin.
What this shows is that PL people also face situations such as challenged children and crisis pregnancies. We also have financial problems, imperfect spouses and failed marriages. Our children don't always turn out as we hoped.
It puts the kabosh to the argument that PL people speak from the vantage point of having perfect children and never facing crisis pregnancies.

I wish there was this much "concern" over Obama's association with terrorists. Imagine if Palin had had a similiar relationship with abortion clinic bombers that Obama had with NYPD and Pentagon bombers.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 7:11 AM


"Why is childbirth painfull?
To punish the woman for her sin of having fornicated."

Oops, I overlooked this part. This is CLEARLY not true. This is simply nowhere to be found in the Genesis text, and I"m sure it's not implied anywhere in any other parts of the bible.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 7:26 AM


"Why is childbirth painfull?
To punish the woman for her sin of having fornicated."

Oops, I overlooked this part. This is CLEARLY not true. This is simply nowhere to be found in the Genesis text, and I"m sure it's not implied anywhere in any other parts of the bible.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 7:26 AM

well my question-- if this were true, how exactly are MEN punished for this sin? Or is it just the woman that has to bear the brunt of this?
This reeks of Manichaeism.

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 7:33 AM


I really enjoyed reading the responses to Colmes "apology".

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:37 AM


==Everyone needs forgiveness.==

Not everybody has access to it, however. Few will find the narrow gate. I'm gonna be in THAT "few" group.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 7:45 AM


Obama should fire himself for making negative comments regarding Bristol's pregnancy. He said that subject was "off-limits" and would fire anyone in his campaign who does--yet it's OK for him to say--he wouldn't want one of his daughters "punished with a pregnancy". Think that is negative enough--I do!!

Posted by: Vicki G at September 2, 2008 7:53 AM


==Show me either in Christian tradition or the bible where you find that abstinence in marriage is necessary for salvation. ==

Malachi 2:15 AMP
The purpose of the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is the production of Godly children. This simulates the "marriage" of Christ, as Bridgegroom, to His Chirch, His Bride. The Church is supposed to produce Godly children, too.

So, outside marriage, sex is called "fornication," and does not produce Godly children.

Paul said that it is better for a man who can control himself NOT to marry, that, if he cannot control himself sexually, he should marry.

Therefore, only Godly "children" will be saved. Abstinence prevents the ungodly from producing ungodly children.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 7:53 AM


==Sex is always a sin (the ultimate sin) whether you are young or old
about to be married or single,
it is still a sin, you are giving in
to temptation, temptation of the flesh, lust. ==

This is true cuz God wants us not to treat each other as objects, as is done in prostitution, for example.

Sex is to be done in the context of marriage, for the purpose of producing Godly children [Malachi 2:15 AMP]. The union simulates the "marriage" of Jesus, the Bridegroom, to His Church, the Bride. The Church is supposed to produce children [of God], too.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 7:59 AM


Oh man, the comments on this thread are a GREAT way to start my day! LOL.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 8:00 AM


==If the Palins were so concerned about Bristol's privacy, why did they choose to throw their kid under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so? If they were genuinely concerned about making sure her pregnancy did not become an issue, they could have simply kept her out of the public eye for the next two months. ==

Cuz the Libs made it such a big deal, the Palins were forced to explain the situation. Were it not for the filthy Libs, they would've kept it private where it belongs. People like you will, however, milk it for everything you can.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 8:02 AM


When did Bristol become pregnant? At conception? Birth? When the doctor told her?

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 8:04 AM


Oh I think I may have misunderstood something here... Are Monk and Mr. I claiming that sex outside of marriage is a sin? Or sex altogether? Because of course I agree that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but it seems to me that Monk was saying that married people should not engage in the conjugal act. I completely agree with what Mr. I says when he writes

"God wants us not to treat each other as objects, as is done in prostitution, for example.

Sex is to be done in the context of marriage, for the purpose of producing Godly children [Malachi 2:15 AMP]. The union simulates the "marriage" of Jesus, the Bridegroom, to His Church, the Bride. The Church is supposed to produce children [of God], too."

but he seems to be agreeing with Monk, which seemed to me to be taking, as Patricia pointed out, a Manichean understanding of things, where the flesh is evil etc etc.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 8:07 AM


Palin's future son-in-law:

"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s- - - and just f - - -in' chillin' I guess."

"Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added.

He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."

This keeps getting better and better...I can't wait til they tell me she has foreign relations experience because she is close to Russia...

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 8:11 AM


So, outside marriage, sex is called "fornication," and does not produce Godly children.

The way a child is conceived in no way makes them Godly or UnGodly.

I was conceived out of wedlock and am saved by the grace of God.

My parents could have never saved me. Only Jesus can do that.

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 8:14 AM


==Are Monk and Mr. I claiming that sex outside of marriage is a sin?==

I merely report what the Word of God says.

==The way a child is conceived in no way makes them Godly or UnGodly.==

Yes, it does. Only if the child is born again does he become Godly. The product of an ungodly union is ungodly. At some point, later, when he gains Knowledge -- capitalized to indicate God's Knowledge -- he can put himself in the position of being born again. The product of a Godly union is ungodly in the sense that Adam made him so, and, so, he must be born again, and, from the time he is born, his parents educate him in the ways of God.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 8:23 AM


I always suspected that Alan Colmes was a token liberal on Fox who was picked because he was so ugly and so stupid, and now I know for sure.

Just when you the fanatical extreme leftist proaborts can't get any lower, along comes Alan Colmes to prove they can.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at September 2, 2008 8:24 AM


Bethany,

When did Miss Palin become pregnant? At conception? Birth? When the doctor waved the flag?

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 8:24 AM


Second paragraph should read: "Just when you THINK the fanatical extreme leftists proaborts can't get any lower, along comes Alan Colmes to prove they can.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at September 2, 2008 8:25 AM


I am confused by what you are saying, Mr. Incredible. Are you saying that children are automatically Godly if their parents are Godly, or are you saying that children who are conceived to parents who are Godly are just exposed to God at an earlier age?
Or are you saying something else?

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 8:27 AM


When did Miss Palin become pregnant? At conception? Birth? When the doctor waved the flag?

Okay, now I'm even more confused. What do you mean?
Of course I believe she was pregnant at fertilization.

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 8:29 AM


"==Are Monk and Mr. I claiming that sex outside of marriage is a sin?==

I merely report what the Word of God says."

Yes, and I agree with you, as I stated above.

"Bethany,

When did Miss Palin become pregnant? At conception? Birth? When the doctor waved the flag?"

Mr. I, Bethany is the most pro-life person on this blog.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 8:39 AM


Peach Pit 8:11am

The relevancy of your post is... what??

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 8:46 AM


Thanks, Bobby! :)

Do you think you can help me understand the meaning of Mr I's posts? I don't know why but I just can't seem to figure out what he's trying to say.

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 8:46 AM


If both godly and ungodly children need to be born again..then where's the other stuff coming from?

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 8:47 AM


Am I the only person who doesn't see this as a huge non-issue?

I agree with Obama:

“Let me be as clear as possible,” Obama said. “I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.”

Posted by: Hal at September 2, 2008 8:50 AM


TD Monk -- try reading the NT again. In confronting the woman caught in adultery and her accusers -- "those of you without sin, cast the first stone" and to the woman " your sin is forgiven, now go and sin no more".

It was the sin of disobedience that drove Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden and resulted in the pain of childbirth and having to toil or labor for their sustenance. Adam and Eve wanted to make themselves like God. Isn't that the root of all sins? "I know better? I don't need to follow any rules or adhere to any religious doctrine."

Posted by: Eileen at September 2, 2008 8:55 AM


Hal, 8:50am

On this we definitely agree. I commend Sen. Obama for this. He also pointed out that his mother was 18 and pregnant with him when she got married.
At that time, biracial births were very stigmatized and biracial children were viewed as better off dead. Also, illegitimacy was not as accepted as it is today and was a social stigma.
Obama's mother faced much to bring him into this world. I wonder if he ever preferred not to have been born or valued his life any less.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 9:01 AM


Bethany: I don't understand what Mr I is trying to state either.

Children born out of wedlock carry original sin, as do we all when we are born and unbaptized. To state that they are somehow more "ungodly" than the rest of us is just NOT true. There is no theological basis for this.

And sex within marriage is not sinful - it is sacred and beautiful if done in the manner designed and intended by God.

And as for Mr. I being the most prolife person on this blog - I can think of at least 5 people who match his qualifications for this title.

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 9:03 AM


"Do you think you can help me understand the meaning of Mr I's posts?"

Well, in his last post, he does talk a lot about being born again.

"Only if the child is born again does he become Godly. The product of an ungodly union is ungodly. At some point, later, when he gains Knowledge -- capitalized to indicate God's Knowledge -- he can put himself in the position of being born again. The product of a Godly union is ungodly in the sense that Adam made him so, and, so, he must be born again, and, from the time he is born, his parents educate him in the ways of God."

So my guess is that he would say that you (as someone born of "ungodly" parents) need to be born again. Now, I'm not sure if he's saying that someone who is born of godly parents does NOT need to be born again, though. I would assume he would use something like John 3 to justify his position, but I don't see godly or ungodly parents mentioned there. This whole distinction between godly and ungodly parents is unfamiliar to me.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 9:08 AM


I haven't been on for the last few threads and am only now catching up.

I see that SoMG has been banned. My heart is broken. If ever a man needed friends, it is he.

I posted this quote on another thread, hoping that he will read it. For everyone, please, as a favor to me, pray for him. Loneliness is an awful disease.

SoMG: A final quote, from one of our favorites. PLEASE read it and think about it...PLEASE...


"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless - it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell." - The Four Loves

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 9:08 AM


Patricia,

I said BETHANY is the most pro-life person.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 9:09 AM


Bobby, my apologies.
My brain must have transposed the comment!
I'd go for Bethany as one of the most prolife prolifers! She's certainly one of my favs!! :-D

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 9:29 AM


mk: it IS too bad that somg was banned.
What I did not like was the constant sexual innuendo and perverted references he always made. Mind you, this gives good insight into what's in (and maybe on) his mind alot.
This sort of crassness is quite common in the liberal mindset. The profaning of the sacred. And isn't abortion a profaning of a the beauty and innocence of life?
What makes me sad is that his intellect and his gifts are being used to destroy rather than build up people. That, to my mind, is the incredible tragedy.

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 9:33 AM


Hal: "Am I the only person who doesn't see this as a huge non-issue?"

Does or doesn't? It sounds like you think it's not all that earth-shaking. Neither do I.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 2, 2008 9:36 AM


Is this a presidential election, or an episode of Jerry Springer?

Posted by: reality at September 2, 2008 9:38 AM


Hal, Mary, and bmmg, I agree. I consider a lot of the comments on this subject to be in poor taste, and shameful. Support for women experiencing crisis pregnancies, and the ability for a young and/or single woman to carry her pregnancy to term without becoming a pariah are positive progress, IMO, and they're things that decrease the abortion rate, which I think both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can agree is a good thing. I'm proud that our society has come this far in terms of supporting women, and I'm ashamed to see people resorting to finger-pointing and laughing. I don't care if you do it in the name of your religion or in the name of your political agenda -- it's equally wrong either way, and it's something I had hoped we had moved beyond.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 2, 2008 9:42 AM


Patricia,

Make no mistake. SoMG's behavior was atrocious. He made the "choice" to behave as he did. Having empathy for his inability to love or be loved, is not the same as excusing his behavior.

I am saddened that he made the choice that he did.
I wish he would have made a different choice.

I wish we could have reached him.
I wish...

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 9:46 AM


mk: as you said, somg exercised his "choice"
he's all for freedom of "choice"
but there ARE consequences to our "choices"
he's just very use to help people get out of the consequences of their choices - he's an enabler

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 9:51 AM


Do you really think someone is unfit for office because they recently had a baby or because their daughter is pregnant?

I mean that could disqualify nearly anyone.

Would Joe Biden be a drag on the ticket if his wife had just had a baby or if his daughter were pregnant?

Would Hillary be unfit if Chelsea were pregnant?

It is absurd.

This is pure sexism.

Critics need to focus on candidates' records and policies not on the pregnancies of familiy members.

It is like we are in the 16th century with this reasoning.

Posted by: hippie at September 2, 2008 9:51 AM


No matter how it came about. Regardless if it came from Abstinence only or Birth control failure. Whether it came at a bad time, or to a too young girl, or to the daughter of a would-be vice president...

A new life has been created.

Celebrate.

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 9:54 AM



So my guess is that he would say that you (as someone born of "ungodly" parents) need to be born again. Now, I'm not sure if he's saying that someone who is born of godly parents does NOT need to be born again, though. I would assume he would use something like John 3 to justify his position, but I don't see godly or ungodly parents mentioned there. This whole distinction between godly and ungodly parents is unfamiliar to me.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 9:08 AM

My sister in law is very religious. She says that when you have a child you invite the serpent into your house.

She means that in children you see some of the basest of human motives albeit expressed sometimes in endearing ways.

Posted by: hippie at September 2, 2008 9:56 AM


How beautiful that Sarah and Todd Palin have built a home built on a foundation of love and dignity. Bristol is obviously secure in the fact that her parents will love and stand by her no matter what. It is obvious that despite Sarah's political career and further political aspirations, she is about supporting her family first and letting the rest fall as it may.

I was not a big McCain fan, but I was turned on Friday by his choice of Palin. If it's true McCain was aware of Bristol's pregnancy and selected Palin anyway, he has earned an even deeper respect on my part.

Just because life is messy doesn't mean we should hide it away or render it sterile. God bless this family and their very public witness to faith, hope, love, commitment and life. They are truly a breath of fresh Alaska air in a political world that has become suffocatingly void of integrity and spirit.

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 10:12 AM


Thank you, MK, for your "celebrate" post. It's something everyone needs to remember. I wish I had known you when I was 19, pregnant and alone.

No matter how loving and close the Palin family is, this has to be an exremely trying time for all of them, and especially hard for Bristol. Imagine, at the age of 17, having your most private relationships and actions being discussed at length by an entire nation. Poor girl. In a way it makes me a little upset with Sarah Palin for putting her daughter in this position. Not the pregnancy, obviously, but for placing her in the spotlight at a time when she's probably already scared and confused.

Posted by: Bee at September 2, 2008 10:13 AM


I love PeachPit's posts. Everyone of them shows how ignorant she really is. I do appreciate the other pro-choicers on this subject though. Even Hal has the common sense to realize this is a non-issue. Too bad the Amandas and LTLs of the world are so focused on anything to degrade Palin that they go out for this stupid issues.

Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2008 10:15 AM


Thank you, MK, for your "celebrate" post. It's something everyone needs to remember. I wish I had known you when I was 19, pregnant and alone.

Dittos MK

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 10:15 AM


Bee,
I agree, this must be a very difficult time for Bristol Palin and her family, but if one considers the widespread dialogue about pregnancy and abortion that has resulted, I see it as a blessing for our nation and a blessing for the Palin family which is a conduit for changing the hearts of Americans. God bless us all.

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 10:23 AM


I had a horrible nightmare that Obama won by one percent of the vote. We need to make sure we conitnue being fired up! If we maintain this positive energy over the next few days, no matter what dirt they throw at Palin and McCain, we will be able to keep the ticket strong! We cant lose!

Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2008 10:24 AM


I agree, Janet, that the far-reaching and long-term results of the situation are positive. Can a 17 year old see that? I hope Bristol is strong enough to realize it! I know that I was not at that age.

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 10:27 AM


Sorry to interrupt crazy time, but the smart money is betting Palin quits or is dropped in the short term, maybe before her speech tomorrow.

Those of an age remember Thomas Eagleton, who dropped out as vp candidate for merely seeking professional treatment for depression.

The son-in-law to be, on his My Space page describes himself as a "f-ing redneck", warns that no one should "f with him" and that he is in a "relationship" but doesn't want kids.

This cetainly bodes well for marital happiness.
GOP family values, I love it!

Posted by: LTL at September 2, 2008 10:34 AM


That 10:27 comment was me. I have NO idea why it says Janet posted it!!

Posted by: Bee at September 2, 2008 10:38 AM


Sarah Palin's daughter having a baby:

get 3 front-page stories on the NY-times.

Barack Obama's longtime friend (William Ayers, who also started his political career once bombed the prentagon and said said after 9/11 he wished he did more damage:

hidden by the MSM.

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 10:42 AM


LTL 10:34am

Get real. Eagleton was the one who had suffered from and was treated for depression, not his daughter.

What is the relevance of the baby's father? Obviously Palin's daughter has some questionable taste in boyfriends. The lament of many a mother for generations. This is hardly any fault of the baby's or Palin's. I'm sure a few ladies on this post, myself included, can count a loser or two in previous relationships.

PL people are hardly immune to unplanned pregnancies, challenged children, and their children becoming involved with less than desirable people. What is important is that Palin lives up to her PL convictions, which she obviously does.
Face it LTL, if she had arranged an abortion for her daughter and one for herself when she discovered she was carrying a Downs child, you'd be squawking about what " a typical PL hypocrite" she is.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 10:51 AM


Jasper, 10:42am

Exactly. Just imagine the reaction if McCain or Palin were this cozy with abortion clinic bombers. Oh gee, we were just casual aquaintances, we served some time on boards together, I went to their home and sought their blessing when I began my political career.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 10:55 AM


I have a face-saving solution for the Palin problem. In the 90's Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party, which advocates succession of Alaska from the US. Solution:

Alaska becomes an independent nation, Palin is the President, and everyone is happy.

Posted by: LTL at September 2, 2008 10:55 AM


LTL,

I'll bet Alaska was just a hairbreadth away from succession too! Whew, what a load off my mind that its still in the Union.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 10:58 AM


LTL,

Do you know if any of Palin's associates in the Alaska Independence Party set off bombs?

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 11:04 AM


Do you really think someone is unfit for office because they recently had a baby or because their daughter is pregnant?

I mean that could disqualify nearly anyone.

Would Joe Biden be a drag on the ticket if his wife had just had a baby or if his daughter were pregnant?

Would Hillary be unfit if Chelsea were pregnant?

It is absurd.

This is pure sexism.

Critics need to focus on candidates' records and policies not on the pregnancies of familiy members.

It is like we are in the 16th century with this reasoning.

Posted by: hippie at September 2, 2008 9:51 AM

I think your right on that Hippie. I guess from a political point of view, you throw everything at the wall, hoping something will stick.

It's obvious that's what's happenening before the debates start no matter how low the blows.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 11:06 AM


I agree, Janet, that the far-reaching and long-term results of the situation are positive. Can a 17 year old see that? I hope Bristol is strong enough to realize it! I know that I was not at that age.
Posted by: Janet (Oops, Bee) at September 2, 2008 10:27 AM

Bee,
Me too. I'm writing responses to my own posts now because no one will talk to me. Life is cruel. :(

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 11:06 AM


LTL :GOP family values, I love it!

Yes LTL, they are imperfect. Life is messy. Bristol Palin and her boyfriend were teenagers wanting to play at grown up, (sadly, not an uncommon occurrence no matter which side of the aisle your parents sit) and found themselves in a life changing situation.

You're obviously upset that instead of rushing off to the abortion clinic, which would have given Dems the desired opportunity to cry "hypocrite", Bristol has the maturity and family support to own up to her responsibility and give birth to her child. It is yet another example that this family walks the talk.

I'll take imperfect family values over the Dems continuous attacks on the family any day!

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 11:06 AM


When our government funds abstinence only programs and the vp candidate stands by those..there is some newsworthiness to the whole thing. I just think it is neat that Palin's child and her grandchild will be in the same grade (or close). That is SO cute.

The Palin pick was a political pick aimed at the small minded one issue voters who refuse to say - which candidate is best for MY country.

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 11:07 AM


I have a face-saving solution for the Palin problem.
Posted by: LTL at September 2, 2008 10:55 AM

You know, "LTL" in the shipping business means "less than load".
By the way, I think Palin has a beautiful face. :o)


Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 11:10 AM


Wow, the NYT articles on this subject are sickening. I can not believe all the blatant sexism their showing. Seriously, I can't even read this stuff. It just makes me sick.

Here's a newsflash to EVERYONE. Daughters of "good parents" get pregnant. It is a testimony to the strength of the mother daughter relationship that Bristol was able to come to her mother and tell her about her pregnancy instead of quietly sneaking off to have an abortion because it would be "better for everyone". How many girls do you think have abortions because they don't want to disappoint their parents? A lot. (Yes, I could dig up the statistics on 17-23 year old abortions, but is that really necessary?)

It isn't a matter of Abstinance Only vs/ Comprehensive...young girls will get prenant. I got pregnant my freshman year of college even though I knew all about birthcontrol. In fact, my mom was the type who took me to get on the pill when I first got into a serious relationship. Guess what, all that knowledge didn't stop me from getting pregnant.

Perhaps absitnance only would have in my case? Who knows. The point is that we can arm our children with information, but they ultimately choose their own actions. To pretend that Bristol's pregnancy is some huge reflection on the horrible religous right is ridiculous.

Good for the Palin family for not just being pro-life when it is easy.

Posted by: Lauren at September 2, 2008 11:11 AM


Will Bristol's baby be a citizen of the USA or of Alaska when it leaves the union? Palin is a traitor..palin and simple. Get it? Get it?

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 11:12 AM


LTL waxed wroth:
Sorry to interrupt crazy time, but the smart money is betting Palin quits or is dropped in the short term, maybe before her speech tomorrow.

That would be a tragedy. Throwing Palin under the bus would enrage all of the very same people who are getting so excited about her. Furthermore, it would make McCain look like a weak & indecisive leader. We had 8 years of Presidency-by-poll under Clinton, and we know how that went. Gimme a leader who can actually stick to his ... or her ... principles.

Speaking of which, The Palin Pregnancy Panic is actually a perfect way to demonstrate how true pro-lifers respond to an unplanned pregnancy with love and grace. For years, pro-choicers have been spreading scurrilous lies about the "hypocrisy" of pro-lifers who supposedly moralize about abortion in public and then sneak off to the abortionist when it's their careers, reputations, or children on the line. Well, the Palin family is proving you all to be the hateful liars that we knew you to be. Under enormous pressure, this family is sticking to its principles. Go, Palins!

More LTL:
Those of an age remember Thomas Eagleton, who dropped out as vp candidate for merely seeking professional treatment for depression.

Did you miss the point that the McCain campaign knew about the Palin Pregnancy Panic before picking Governor Palin as VP? That simple point makes your Eagleton analogy seem irrelevant....

More LTL:
The son-in-law to be, on his My Space page describes himself as a "f-ing redneck", warns that no one should "f with him" and that he is in a "relationship" but doesn't want kids.

So he's a bit immature. Shockingly, he's 18 years old. He's supposed to be immature at that age. What's your point?

Also, didn't you get the memo from Pope Obama that families -- especially children -- are off-limits? But hey, keep piling on the slime. Targeting kids will only backfire and add to our margin of victory. :)

Take your lead from Hal & Alexandra. They're providing the model of good behavior right now....

Posted by: Naaman at September 2, 2008 11:15 AM


Peach Pit

Please name any Alaska Independence Party associates of Palin who ever wiped their feet on the American flag or planted bombs.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 11:17 AM


Psalm 15:2 He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, And speaks truth in his heart.

Posted by: TD Monk at September 2, 2008 11:18 AM


Did Joe Biden or Obama wipe his feet or plant bombs?

I do not have evidence of those things with those two guys...

But hey, if you are ok with voting for someone that didn't want to be an American, go for it.

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 11:21 AM


Since the announcement of Palin, McCain's popularity has gone down a little. The chart is the average of the Rasmussen, Hotline, CNN, CBS and Gallup polls. Obama's popularity has continued up, and is now higher than anytime in the past year.

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 11:21 AM


"The son-in-law to be, on his My Space page describes himself as a "f-ing redneck", warns that no one should "f with him" and that he is in a "relationship" but doesn't want kids."

Yeah, LTL, he's 17. You know what, that's how *most* 17 year old's talk. But, shockingly, those same 17 year olds, when faced with responsibility, usually rise to the challange.

I would imagine (because I have seen it play out with several people) that the young man will get a job (probably in the oil field) upon graduation to support his family. They will surivive. Having children tends to hasten people's maturity.

If he remains immature, well, it's obvious that Bristol has the support of her family who will no doubt help her to raise her child and position herself to figure out her long term situation.

I have a cousin who's parents are very wealthy democrats. She got pregnant in college with a guy who was, shall we say, not ready to be a father. My cousin stayed in school, and her parents help her with child care. She'll graduate from college next year with an education degree, and manage just fine as a single mother. It was not ideal, but it is the reality of the situation. It's life.

I'm sure the Palins will be supportive of her daughter even if her fiance does fizzle out. Hopefully though, this young man will realize his responsibilities and become a good husband and father.

Posted by: Lauren at September 2, 2008 11:24 AM


DeeL @ 11:06,

I'll take imperfect family values over the Dems continuous attacks on the family any day!

Amen!

Happy to be called a hypocrite.


Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 11:24 AM


Doug,

Obama is enjoying the typical post convention bounce.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 11:26 AM



How interesting, apparently Obama was doing drugs when he was the same age as Bristol Palin.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 11:28 AM


Peach Pit,

Please, like Obama, does Sarah Palin associate with bombers and those who desecrate the American flag by wiping their feet on it?

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 11:29 AM


Yes,it't time for proaborts everywhere to fall in line behind their obamessiah and stop the nasty personal attacks on Sarah Palin and her family. But does anyone actually believe they will? If so, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to talk to you about......

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at September 2, 2008 11:30 AM


Palin's future son-in-law:

"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s- - - and just f - - -in' chillin' I guess."

"Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added.

He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."

This keeps getting better and better...I can't wait til they tell me she has foreign relations experience because she is close to Russia...
Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 8:11 AM
*************************************

Again, can we say "smacks of desperation?"

So we're now going to judge a VP candidate based on the words of her teenage daughter's boyfriend?

ROFL. Seriously. ROFL.

Posted by: Kel at September 2, 2008 11:33 AM


LTL: the smart money is betting Palin quits or is dropped in the short term, maybe before her speech tomorrow.

I don't know about that, and it would be surprising.

I have read that McCain had only met Palin a time or two before picking her for Veep, and the New York Times says the team sent to vet Palin didn't arrive until one day before the announcement.

The L.A. Times says that McCain's advisors have now sent a team of attorneys and helpers to Alaska to deal with things, so there may be some worry.

I don't think the pregnant daughter is a big deal at all.

If anything, I'd say the investigation into Palin's firing of the state safety commissioner would be the real problem.


Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 11:33 AM


Oh mary, a new question! Actually, she does. She associates herself with those that do not want to be American. If you are referring to Obama's relationship with Ayers, I suggest you do some research on the subject before popping off.

Doyle, that is such a tired use of his name. Can you think of something else or are you limited?

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 11:34 AM


I'm just glad the Palin's have the choice to keep all their babies...unlike China where they govern the uterus...

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 11:35 AM


Obama is enjoying the typical post convention bounce.

Mary, perhaps. Biden was a small net positive for Obama, and thus far - from the polls - Palin has been a small net negative for McCain. We shall see.

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 11:36 AM


Per discussion on godly vs. ungodly parents:

WE are not saved according to our parents' salvation or lack thereof.

We must account for ourselves.

And I have to say that I know some pretty wonderful godly young people who are serving the Lord now who were born out of wedlock.

A person's illegitimacy at birth does not disqualify them from salvation. To even imply such a thing is ridiculous.

Romans 3:23. Is anyone here exempt? I don't believe so.

Posted by: Kel at September 2, 2008 11:38 AM


Doyle: stop the nasty personal attacks on Sarah Palin and her family. But does anyone actually believe they will?

Doyle, there will always be people getting on the case of candidates they don't favor and lauding the ones they do, whether it's even remotely justified or not. Not a big deal at all.

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 11:39 AM


Doug wrote:
Since the announcement of Palin, McCain's popularity has gone down a little.

This comment makes me smile. You've forgotten something....

Obama's convention just ended last week. He is supposed to be getting a "bounce" in the polls right now. If McCain's popularity wasn't going down, Obama would be screwed in the long-term.

So why am I smiling?

Because the Palin Pick has all-but eliminated the Democrats (and their convention) from the news. It's been really funny watching CNN & MSNBC over the last few days. Here's my rough summary of the MSM's coverage:
"Palin's the pick!"
"Palin's hot!"
"Palin might have done something bad with her sister's ex-husband or somebody ... we're no sure, but stay tuned for more!"
"Look, here's some footage of Palin with a gun!"
"Palin has no experience! In fact, she has almost as little experience as Obama does! Are you scared of her yet?"
"By the way, did you know that Palin's baby has Downs?"
"Still hot...."
"Hey, Palin's daughter is pregnant! Teenage mother alert!"
"Oh, some guy named Ohama, Olama, Obama, whatever ... he gave a speech. Now back to our 24-hour Palin coverage!"

W00t!!!

Posted by: Naaman at September 2, 2008 11:41 AM


Naaman, it remains to be seen what Palin will do for McCain, if anything.

I hear you and Mary on the "post-convention bounce," but they are of little if any predictive values.

I was just looking at the effect of the Biden and Palin announcements.

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 11:46 AM


Doug wrote:
Naaman, it remains to be seen what Palin will do for McCain, if anything.

Yes and no. I agree with you that it is much too soon to see what the effect on the polls will be. However, one effect is already obvious. Palin has energized the conservative base like nothing else that McCain could have done. And that matters.

A campaign needs footsoldiers. They need volunteers to call people, to get out the vote, to post signs, to staff events, to do all sorts of things. Those footsoldiers come from the base. Obama already has the liberal base singing to his tune. Frankly, after eight years of Bush/Cheney and fantasizing about "the coming theocracy," the liberal base would have been electrified for nearly anyone with a pulse. However, in spite of all of his many failings, Obama is a charismatic and history-making candidate. So he's got the liberal base turned up to 11. (That's one louder, y'know.)

Meanwhile, the conservative base was in danger of sleeping through the election. We were going to vote for McCain just because he isn't Obama, but we weren't really engaged in this election. Palin has changed that. Just read the comments on this blog for a sample! Palin gives conservatives (especially pro-lifers) a reason to vote for the GOP, not just vote against Obama.

McCain/Palin in 2008! (And again in 2012!)

Then....

Palin/Jindal in 2016! :)

Posted by: Naaman at September 2, 2008 11:54 AM


Naaman - who knows? I've said all along that we got us a horserace.

I think a Huckabee would have "energized" the more extreme "conservative" sector just as much and probably more than Palin.

Aside from the VP candidates, it'll be interesting to see the polls after the Republican convention ends.

One thing I heard today is that Bush Jr. will indeed speak - a thing that McCain's handlers had hoped to avoid if Bush would get tied up with hurricane damage and danger - the desire to distance himself from the precious Administration is certainly there for McCain.

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 12:01 PM


Peachpit, how about "The Obamanation"? Do you like that better?

Doug wrote: "Doyle, there will always be people getting on the case of candidates they don't favor and lauding the ones they do, whether it's even remotely justified or not. Not a big deal at all."

Hey Doug, in case you missed it, the buzz right now is not to attack "the candidate", but to go right after her kids! And you think that's "not a big deal"?

Woah, even the Obamanator told them to shut up!

Posted by: Doyle at September 2, 2008 12:09 PM


As I mentioned (and got dogpiled on as a result) and as others have mentioned, Palin's family drama is a side issue, except to the extent that it further emphasizes how little McCain's campaign knew about her before they signed her up as his running mate. Consider this:

1. Palin is in the middle of an investigative probe over her allegedly retaliatory firing of the State Safety Commissioner.

2. She has already been caught lying about her office's involvement in pressuring the SSC to fire her ex-brother-in-law.

3. She apparently has a history of retaliatory firings, beginning with her election as mayor in Wasilla.

4. The night that McCain announced her as his pick, she used her speech to outright lie about her support for the "Bridge to Nowhere" and has now been busted by national media for lying.

5. She has links to an Alaskan separatist group.

6. The church she attends has links to Joel's Army, which is about a half a step away from advocating full-on domestic terrorism.

7. Her positions on abortion and teaching creationism in the classroom are well outside the mainstream.


She was a bone that McCain threw to the wingnut brigade in hopes that they will turn out for him the way they turned out for Bush. Based upon the responses to her that I see here, it worked. Too bad that the pick also demonstrates McCain's incredibly poor judgment.

Posted by: Geez Louise at September 2, 2008 12:11 PM


Naaman:

Regarding your latest comment.

Boom, there it is, boom there it is.

Badadbing, badaboom.

Swisheroo, a three pointer.

Touchdown.

Hole-in-one.

It's outta here, a walk-off grand slam.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 12:12 PM


Palin's future son-in-law:

"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s- - - and just f - - -in' chillin' I guess."

"Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added.

He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."

This keeps getting better and better...I can't wait til they tell me she has foreign relations experience because she is close to Russia...

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 8:11 AM

PP,
You are really grasping at straws to think this has ANY relevance to a VP pick.

Posted by: Sandy at September 2, 2008 12:28 PM


Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 11:07 AM

PP, I am two months older than my niece too. It is kind-of-cool. We were close as children and I remember calling her on the telephone phone almost every day when I got home from school.

And BC is the wonder-solution you would make it out to be.
1) It fails, over 50% of abortions are committed on women who were using BC when they got pregnant
2) It is not healthy for girls to ingesting high-dose steroids over long-periods of time.

I'm definitely not putting my girls on them.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 12:29 PM


Mary, perhaps. Biden was a small net positive for Obama, and thus far - from the polls - Palin has been a small net negative for McCain. We shall see.

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 11:36 AM

Doug,
How do you see Palin as a small net negative?
McCain's campaign raised over 10 million dollars in two days after the Palin announcement. What is your poll source?

Posted by: Sandy at September 2, 2008 12:31 PM


Geez Louise wrote:
As I mentioned (and got dogpiled on as a result) and as others have mentioned, Palin's family drama is a side issue, except to the extent that it further emphasizes how little McCain's campaign knew about her before they signed her up as his running mate.

Are you illiterate? If not, read this:
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=5f9faddd-4d87-4b78-a1e9-ef2826498d31

I'll summarize for you:
* Palin was vetted
* All of the slime that y'all are trying to throw now was already known to the McCain campaign before Palin became the VP pick
* Knowing all of that stuff, McCain picked her anyway

Look, you hate Sarah Palin. I get it. She's the real substance, of which Hillary Clinton and most so-called feminists is just a shadow. She has a family, a career in politics, and a faith in God.

Is she perfect? Nope.
Is her family perfect? Nope.
Do we seek perfection in our politicians? Nope.
Is she bearing up under the strain with the grace and character that we'd like to see? YES!

Y'all need to be careful. Excessive mudslinging against Governor Palin is only going to "out" the Hard Left as vicious sociopaths. You're going to do the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's work for them. I mean, we all knew that you were vicious sociopaths, but you've had the rest of the country fooled until now.... :)

Posted by: Naaman at September 2, 2008 12:36 PM


6. The church she attends has links to Joel's Army, which is about a half a step away from advocating full-on domestic terrorism.

7. Her positions on abortion and teaching creationism in the classroom are well outside the mainstream.

Posted by: Geez Louise at September 2, 2008 12:11 PM
********************************

Joel's Army?? Are we talking about the religious belief which has NOTHING to do with terrorism but with a spiritual belief based on the book of Joel which is also considered to be heresy by many within the denomination to which Palin belongs? There's no terrorism here, just a differing in the interpretation of one Scripture, and has nothing to do with bombings, etc. Unlike the Ayers/Obama connection. But nice try.

Also, it is Palin's position that BOTH intelligent design and evolution be taught and debated in schools.

By the way, since when did the "mainstream" actually VOTE to make abortion legal in this country? Oh, that's right, they DIDN'T. A handful of judges found a magical right to it in a constitution of their own making.

Posted by: Kel at September 2, 2008 12:43 PM


Looks like Jill's colleagues at World Net Daily also have the long knives out:

Sarah Palin's feminist folly
Posted: September 02, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Olivia St. John
© 2008

Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old, unmarried daughter of Sarah Palin, is pregnant. Although she plans to keep the baby and marry the father, her immoral shortcoming is still clear for the nation (and world) to see. Is it possible that her very busy, avowedly-feminist mother, the governor of Alaska and presumptive Republican vice-presidential candidate, could have made a moral difference, had she been more available for her daughter?

With this in mind, it is sobering that, among the thousands of conservative pundits praising John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, no one is asking a very important question: Does America really need a feminist in the White House?

Yes, I know that the selection of Palin appeared almost providential. McCain introduced Palin to an admiring throng on his birthday, which also happened to be the Palin's 20th anniversary, which also happened to be, almost to the day, the 88th anniversary of the day women won the right to vote. Add to that the fact that Palin's son deploys for Iraq on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and it appears the stars have aligned wonderfully for the Republicans' presidential campaign.

And yes, I know that the Aug. 29 crowning of former beauty queen Palin as "Mrs. VP America" effectively derailed the charismatic socialist festivities of Barack Obama's acceptance speech the night before. It must have been a terrible let-down for his messianic followers to see their anointed agent of change thrust from the limelight and replaced by the governor of a state with a population roughly equivalent to Fort Worth, Texas.

And yes, I know that leading Christian conservatives like Dr. James Dobson with Focus on the Family are thrilled that, in an election year when a Democrat runs on an infanticide ticket, Republicans have a two-punch pro-life ticket. It's an important year because one more pro-life justice added to the Supreme Court could mean the end to the mass slaughter of millions of unborn children within their mother's wombs. Conservatives now have hope. The timing is right.

But is it the right time for Palin's children and for the children of America?

As Palin stole the spotlight, her husband and children stood off-stage watching. Bristol held her mother's 5-month-old baby and carried her unborn grandchild. I wonder if the children know what's ahead for them.

Sarah Palin considers herself a feminist, which gives her affinity with liberals like Geraldine Ferraro and Sen. Hillary Clinton, both of whom she honored by mentioning their achievements in her speech: "It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

Described by Time magazine as fiercely competitive, Palin is not intimidated by juggling family with future responsibilities. She is ready for the challenge. But are her children?

It is clear that Bristol, at least, is not.

Last April, when Palin gave birth to her fifth child, she dutifully returned to her work as governor after three days. A few years prior, while serving as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she kept her infant daughter in a car seat under her desk while she worked in her office.

At a time when many former feminists cry foul upon realizing they were duped into thinking they could do it all, few seem to be asking if Palin can do it all.

More and more women who work outside the home say they are stressed and overworked. They regret ever having taken the mantle of both motherhood and working outside the home. They have discovered that under the weight of too much responsibility, something has to give – and any honest woman will tell you that it is the children who get the short shrift. After all, the pressure to make a project deadline in a salaried job is greater than the pressure to make time for one's own children.

While Palin is rightly applauded for her staunch pro-life stand, her embrace of a feminist worldview as it relates to family life is troubling. Palin's desire to "shatter the glass ceiling" is legitimizing the societal phenomenon of the career-centric absentee mother.

Assuming McCain wins the election, I can't help but wonder where under her vice presidential desk Palin plans to keep her bustling 1-year-old. Of course, there will be parent-substitutes to do that job.

In a 2006 edition of Mothering from the Heart, Audrey Broggi notes that Christians who ostensibly value motherhood are undermining it in their actions and words.

"I guess somewhere along the way, Christian women decided to listen to Betty Friedan," Broggi said. "See, the family can always take the back seat – even for the sake of 'the call.' You know what they say: 'God will take care of the children for the sake of ministry.'"

Where in our culture today do women hear about the priority of home and family? Where do they hear about the seasons of life? Some of us thought Dr. Dobson understood.

"The answer to the problem facing our families is not found in government intervention, but godly intervention at home," according to a 2006 In Touch Ministries article. "Parental devotion is hard to replace … children sense levels of commitment." The article goes on to say that the greatest fear our children face is the fear of abandonment.

Some mothers get high off the status afforded by a high-paying job. Others get buzzed as they're praised for being fighter pilots in our military. And still others receive honor for taking high political positions that leave them little latitude to meet young ones' needs.

"The American female is free to be an idiot," says Nancy Levant, author of "The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female (and her dreadful timing)." Having witnessed the emotional fallout children suffer when farmed off to caretakers, she says that too many homes are sterile because mothers have "lost their senses under the highly political guise of 'liberation.'"

Too many pro-life conservatives who oppose a mother's "choice" to abandon her baby in the womb think little about how pro-choice they are when it comes to leaving children in day-care centers and public school warehouses 50-plus hours a week. A child's life doesn't end once he is born. He still needs his mother.

What message was sent to the mothers of America as Sarah Palin took the vice-presidential spotlight while her children watched from the shadows?

Posted by: reality at September 2, 2008 12:51 PM


Peach Pit 11:34am

Oh, so either Bill Ayers was not a terrorist or Obama never associated with him, which is it?
The names please of Palin's associates who planted bombs and wiped their feet on the American flag.
Also, Obama's 20 year membership in a church where the pastor cursed America.
Oh, that's right. He had no idea what his pastor said or what he stood for.
Don't talk to me about popping off.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 12:51 PM


Sandy,
My husband told me McCain's servers crashed on Friday after people had donated 3 million in one hour.

Posted by: Carla at September 2, 2008 12:51 PM


How interesting. Biden's son and brother have both been indicted on fraud involving millions.
Where's the 24/7 coverage on this?

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 12:53 PM


Geez:

The wild and hysterical accusations you make against Sarah Palin are evidence of your realization that she is a formidable candidate and you now know that McCain-Palin is going to crush the Obama-Biden ticket.

Keep posting because as the campaign unfolds the American people will really understand who the Left is - a Party that has to promise everything including the murder of children with an emphasis on black abortion, the retreat from our sworn enemies, be all things to all people, and appear conservative in the process, and then deliver absolutely nothing except a stained dress and 9/11.

The American people understand this.

Please keep posting, pleae, please, please.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 12:54 PM


I'll summarize for you:
* Palin was vetted
* All of the slime that y'all are trying to throw now was already known to the McCain campaign before Palin became the VP pick
* Knowing all of that stuff, McCain picked her anyway

Wow, that speaks even worse for his judgment.

Posted by: Geez Louise at September 2, 2008 12:59 PM


Mary,
Comparing Ayers and Palin is a non-issue. One was an acquaintance, once IS THE CANDIDATE. Geesh...you a lawyer?

The VP candidate for McCain does not want to even be an American. Does not know what the VP does. Thinks the war that her son is going to fight in was for oil. Good luck!

one issue voters = small minded people.

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 1:00 PM


August 04, 2002

The daughter of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a police officer outside a Chicago bar.

Ashley Blazer Biden, 21, of Wilmington, Del., was with a group of people on a North Side street where several bars are located when someone else threw a bottle at an officer, police said.

When police tried to arrest another person, Biden blocked the officer's path and made intimidating statements, officer JoAnn Taylor said.

Sen. Biden's spokeswoman, Margaret Aitken, declined to comment, calling it a private, family matter.

############

oh, I see. The MSM thought so too, after all, you are a Democrat.

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 1:09 PM


How ' bout these tidbits from http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3282 :

1. Barack Obama, Sr., was married at the time to Kezia Obama, who was three months pregnant when her husband moved to Hawaii on a government scholarship to attend the University of Hawaii. Obama never formally divorced Kezia, yet married Stanley Ann while living in Hawaii.
2. Six months after Barack and Stanley Ann wed, they announced the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. on August 4, 1961.

SIX MONTHS!!!??? What's wrong with the picshur???

3. Barack Obama, Sr., soon left his wife and newborn son, Barack, Jr., to continue his studies at Harvard University.

You mean to say that Harvard was more important than his family!!???

4. At some point in the 1970s when Barack was attending school in Hawaii, he became acquainted with Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, USA. Davis had moved to Hawaii in 1948 from Chicago where he had been involved in Marxist-related activities.

No kiddin'. Gee, say it isn't so.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 1:13 PM


The funny thing about abstinence, the pill, condoms, etc...


They only work when used properly.

They ALL fail, when used improperly.

Regardless, sex causes pregnancy. Always has. Always will. If that's ALL that kids were taught in school, it would be enough. The rest, I fear, is up to them.

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 1:13 PM


No, sometimes, even when used properly, condoms fail. Abstinence works every time it's tried. It never fails cuz, if one has sex, it isn't abstinence.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 1:17 PM


Did the pro-aborts forget to inform Alan Colmes that childbirth decisions are between women and their doctors?

Posted by: Sandy at September 2, 2008 1:18 PM


How interesting. Biden's son and brother have both been indicted on fraud involving millions.
Where's the 24/7 coverage on this?

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 12:53 PM
-----------------------------------

24/7???? How 'bout just 30 seconds. Can't even get that!

We must remember how much on Obama's side the lamestream media is. You ain't gonna get 24/7 of anything, unless it's anti-Palin. They are scared.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 1:19 PM


Did the pro-aborts forget to inform Alan Colmes that childbirth decisions are between women and their doctors?

Posted by: Sandy at September 2, 2008 1:18 PM
-----------------------------

Didn't NObama say that the father's responsibility begins at conception? So, why isn't the father in those talks? After all, half the stuff that goes into making the baby is his.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 1:21 PM


These left wing scum will stoop to ANYTHING.

What of Bristol had aborted her baby three months ago, would that be fair game cause it is immoral? NOOOO. That what is SOOO perverted about their logic. A woman has a right to reproductive privacy and make her own child-bearing decisions only if they vote Demon-crat.

When the dust settles this wil be just another glaring example of how it brings out the fangs on liberals like PeachPit anytime a girl like Bristol chooses to keep her baby? What if you found out one of Obama's or Bidens kid's had a child out of wedlock and aborted, would they have the same outrage and crucify them too, or do they forgive them as long as they kill the baby. This is a new low even for the liberals. Not that it is made public, but that people like PeachPit attack her as being immoral. What a bunch of horse-sh!t.

God bless Bristol and her new baby. And God contimue to bless the Palin family and lead them to the White House as servants of your Holy will.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 1:21 PM


PP: Comparing Ayers and Palin is a non-issue. One was an acquaintance, once IS THE CANDIDATE.

Mary hasn't compared Palin to Ayers at all. She has been comparing Palin to Obama, who keeps company (he is much more than an acquaintance) with the terrorist Ayers. She has asked you to provide the names of any comparable terrorists with which Palin is known to associate. You have bobbed and weaved around that question but, as yet, not answered.

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 1:24 PM


Now that the meanspiritedness and the hatefulness of the Left nuts are in full swing, I just can't wait for the polls, to see how the Libs are damaging their cause. So, please, please, Libs, keep up the good work.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 1:25 PM


Peach Pit,

So you have no problem with a president of the US who associated with terrorists, even seeking their blessing at the start of his political career?
You have no problem with a president who listened to his pastor curse America, remaining a member of that church for 20 years?

BTW PP, Palin has registered as a Republican since 1982.

"Officials of the AIP say Palin was once a member, but the McCain campaign-providing what it says is complete voter registration documentation- says Palin has been according to official records a lifelong Republican."

According to the AIP website, "[T}hough it is widely thought to be a successionist movement, the Party makes great effort to emphasize that its primary goal is merely a vote on succession, something that Party advocates say Alaskans were denied during the founding of the state"

Do your research PP.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 1:26 PM


So, at "some point in the 1970s when Barack was attending school in Hawaii, he became acquainted with Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, USA. Davis had moved to Hawaii in 1948 from Chicago where he had been involved in Marxist-related activities."

Tasty.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible at September 2, 2008 1:27 PM


"Did the pro-aborts forget to inform Alan Colmes that childbirth decisions are between women and their doctors?"

Sandy, good point :)

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 1:31 PM


The rabid Democrat reaction to pro-life Palin is laughable. You live by the choice mantra when it is convenient for you - moral relativism at its best.

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 1:32 PM


The apple was a symbol or metaphor for temptation of the flesh.
The woman first gave in and then persuaded the man to also sin.
thus

To the woman he said,
"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with pain you will give birth to children.

As the say and have said in the holy land
and surrounding areas for 1000s of years
'when a man and a woman are together in a room the third person is the devil'.

If it feels good, don't do it.

Posted by: TD Monk at September 2, 2008 1:34 PM


Geez Jasper,

Maybe Biden just couldn't balance fatherhood and the Senate. Any question as to his fitness to be VP given the trouble his children seem prone to get into?

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 1:36 PM


Ok, now tapes of Palin's wacky pastor's sermons are surfacing, after tapes of Palin claiming in her church that the US is doing "God's work" in Iraq (presumably kicking some Muslim behind).

I note with humor the desperation to distract from Palin's scandal of the hour, or minute, with dated and silly smears against Obama.

I predict she is out by 9/15.

Posted by: LTL at September 2, 2008 1:37 PM


This article: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24284796-5000117,00.html
by an Austrailian newsman seems to know Americans and American politics quite well.

It starts "IF only Sarah Palin were just some famous guy's wife." and ends with "She emerged strong, but human. Not a symbol, but very real. In fact, McCain may have picked the one politician who could help win him the election.

Should she succeed, watch out. This clearly isn't a woman happy to simply help another man be president. "

A great read...Andy

Posted by: Andy at September 2, 2008 1:38 PM


Janet 1:32PM

Its precisely because Palin lives her PL convictions that the MSM and lefties are going beserk.
Imagine how they would salivate over the "typical PL hypocrite" if she had aborted her DS baby and her pregnant daughter.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 1:40 PM


Today's presidential tracking polls:

Gallup: Obama hits 50% for the first time, rising to an 8 point lead over McCain.

Rasmussen: Obama rises to 51% with a 6 point lead.

Just sayin'....

Posted by: Geez Louise at September 2, 2008 1:41 PM


LTL,

Please specify what exactly the "smears" are.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 1:42 PM


Geez Louise,

Ever hear of post convention bounce?

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 1:43 PM


Oooooh, that's gotta hurt. David Frum, former Bush speech writer and American Enterprise Institute Fellow wrote this today:

"Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She served two terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000. She served two terms as mayor. In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues.

All this would matter less, but for this fact: The day that John McCain announced his selection of Sarah Palin was his birthday. His 72nd birthday. Seventy-two is not as old as it used to be, but Mr. McCain had a bout with melanoma seven years ago, and his experience in prison camp has uncertain implications for his future health.

If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until recently was a small-town mayor."


Frum ain't exactly one of those Kumbayah singin' liberals either. Brutal.


Posted by: Geez Louise at September 2, 2008 1:45 PM


reality: A child's life doesn't end once he is born.

On that one, you'd better lecture your idol, Obama/infanticide backer.

One of the funniest signs held by an Obama supporter in the crowds: "Biden for change" LOL

GeezLouise: Palin is in the middle of an investigative probe over her allegedly retaliatory firing of the State Safety Commissioner.

These are the safety type officers/troopers/ keepers of the peace that such folks as yourself want taxpayers to pay for and trust:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/45694.html

Wooten recently gave his union permission to release the entire investigative file, all 482 pages and hours of recorded interviews.

"The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession," Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days. After the union protested it, the suspension was reduced to five days.

She warned that if he messed up again, he'd be fired.

"This discipline is meant to be a last chance to take corrective action," Grimes wrote. "You are hereby given notice that any further occurrences of these types of behaviors or incidents will not be tolerated and will result in your termination."

As the investigation got under way in 2005, Wooten was in the midst of a bitter divorce from Palin's sister, Molly McCann. The couple was fighting over custody of their two young children. Accusations flew from both sides.

Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:

-- Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

-- He illegally shot a moose.

-- He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

-- He told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

Beyond the investigation sparked by the family, trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he joined the force, according to Grimes' letter to Wooten.

......

He remains on the force in Wasilla.

So, with an 80% approval rate, it would appear that folks in Alaska would like her to continue to fight such corruption in the "good ol' boys' ranks"!

Posted by: KC at September 2, 2008 1:47 PM


Mary @ 1:40,

Janet 1:32PM:Its precisely because Palin lives her PL convictions that the MSM and lefties are going beserk.
Imagine how they would salivate over the "typical PL hypocrite" if she had aborted her DS baby and her pregnant daughter.

Exactly. If you don't stand for something anything goes. If you stand for something, you'd better do no wrong, or they'll come after you.

I'm listening to the radio in Chicago. Dems are accusing McCain of politicking. (*GASP!*)
Well, DUH!

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 1:51 PM


GL 1:45PM

LOL. Your guy served two terms in the Illinois Senate and entered the US senate in 2005.
Please elaborate on his foreign policy experience other than his recent see and learn tour of the Middle East and Europe.
His actual administrative experience is what?
Palin has had such experience as a mayor and governor. She may become president if something happens to McCain, after she has served as his understudy gaining knowledge and experience.
Obama will go in and learn on the job.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 1:55 PM


Abstinence needs to be taught as PART of comprehensive chastity education. It has been my experience that when teens and young adults understand the inherent dignity of their sexuality, they choose abstinence.

As SoMG pointed out on a previous thread, fear of pregnancy, STIs, loss of reputation etc. are not valuable motivators in practicing abstinence. The human drive to procreate is stronger than fear. If that weren't the case, would any of us have had children? In addition, teens and very young adults do not have the brain development to think their actions out to their possible consequences. Therefore, pushing the negatives of sex will never be enough in curtailing premarital, particularly teen, sex.

Teens must be taught to love and value themselves, love and respect each other (never use each other for self gratification) and to see the beauty and dignity imprinted on the marital embrace.

To teach abstinence without chastity degrades sexual relations to something dirty. Abstinence from love elevates sex to its proper place, the holiest thing we mere humans can hope to participate in here on earth.

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 1:55 PM


Well sure, Mary, no problem! I'd be happy to elaborate. Here is a comparison of the Palin resume to the Obama resume:

Palin:

Bachelor's degree in Journalism from the University of Idaho. Briefly worked in broadcasting as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations. Palin spent four years on the Wasilla "City" Council. Two-term mayor of Wasilla, population approx 6000, from 1996-2002. Governor of Alaska, population 670,053, from December 2006 to present.


Obama:

Bachelors degree in political science and foreign relations from Columbia U. Law degree from Harvard Law School. Editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. Graduated Magna Cum Laude. Majored in Constitutional Law. 2+ yrs. as a community organizer between college & law school. Practiced civil rights law, law professor at University of Chicago. Wrote two best-selling books. Senator of the 13th district in Illinois from 1996-2004, representing approx 653,647 constituents. Representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate from 2004-2008 Obama was representing approx 12,831,970 constituents. Member of Veterans' Affairs Committee; Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs; Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. Created the largest and most effective field campaign in modern Democratic history. Broke new ground through use of online organizing. (The original two lists compiled by Puma J; additions by Kossacks.)

Senator Obama's legislative record/bills found here: http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/obamas-senate-accomplishments/

Economic summit meetings with such people such as former Clinton administration Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, Warren Buffett, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, and two officials from George W. Bush's first term as president: Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Securities and Exchange Commissioner William Donaldson.

Meetings with his senior advisory group on national security which includes such people as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Senator David Boren, former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor, etc.

Further, Obama has been to the Middle East and met with the leaders of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Palestine, as well as with the leaders of some of our European allies, and the leaders of our military.

Posted by: Geez Louise at September 2, 2008 1:58 PM


Oh my gosh, Obama's done it all. I guess I'm gonna have to take my conservative ass down to the polling booth and vote for him. He is so super, and so Messiah-like, I just can't help it.

Geez Louise, I will be forever grateful for your advice. ;)

Posted by: Andy at September 2, 2008 2:06 PM


I am so, so proud of all the staunch pro-lifers on this site, but especially of the woman, both those that have had abortions and found redemption in Christ's loving arms and those that have not had abortions, together valiantly fighting against it.

Know this, the gates of hell Jesus was talking about did not refer to a gate as in an opening in a wall or fence, the "gates of hell" refers to all the powers that would be brought to bear against believers after Jesus' departure to Heaven and before His eventual and inexorable return.

These powers include the demons of hell and the evil forces at work in the world be they political, financial, religious, the media, etc.

So, know that this attack on Sarah Palin, who is definitely a follower of Christ, is being waged by the gates of hell. I am sure that John McCain spent many hours in prayer over this decision, an act even more important than the vetting process itself.

Know this too: Jesus also said this, "and shall not prevail against her".

Do you think that God made any mistakes in describing the church in the female gender? I don't. God knows how formidable a woman believer is. I mean I'm married to one and have raised one. All you have to do is look at Mary Magdelene, the Virgin Mary, Esther, Ruth, and Rahab whose decisions changed the course of history.

You think it stupid that satan attacks the very source of God's power which is a baby in a mother's womb as demonstrated by the birth and Christ Himself? Let no one be decieved, satan knows exactly what he is doing and we are not ignorant of his schemes.

I have said on this site that it is up to the church to eliminate abortion in the world. I still believe this, however, I am more convinced now, that it is the woman of the church that must lead this battle. And you my friends are doing this.

Go out and gather your sisters and pray and unite and join John's and Palin's campaign.

The Bible says that "a good man leaves a legacy to his children's children". This applies to a woman as well. Will we be good? Will we leave a legacy? Will we even have children's children to leave a legacy to? Not if the Liberals have their way.

It is up to you to make a difference. Now is the time. Join, unite, give, pray, and pray some more in what should now be the most revolutionary woman's movement in the country; the defeat of legalized abortion.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 2:07 PM


GL,

Again where is his foreign policy EXPERIENCE?
If you're going to make an issue of Palin's then let's see Obama's sterling credentials in this area. Wasn't this the genius that was going to sit down with tyrants with no preconditions? Who doesn't think a "little" country like Iran poses any threat?
Meeting the leaders of foreign countries on a see and learn tour, which he took to hopefully impress Americans with his "knowledge" of foreign policy. First ladies meet leaders of foreign nations all the time. Big deal.
Also what difference does the population of a state make? At what population does administrative experience begin to make a difference?

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 2:07 PM


He is so super, and so Messiah-like

Careful Andy, only the libs and O himself are allowed to call Obama messiah.

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 2:13 PM


Your guy:

He likes to hang with spiritual mentors who damn America (obviously Americans)...IOW, putting a curse YOU!

He likes to get property through indicted thugs by doing favors - ooooh! HOPE...at least for the Chicago pol system to enter Washington.

He chooses to fight personal problems with drugs. Still fights cigarette addiction...another great idol for youngsters.

He wars with those baby "punishers" even after they're born.

He wants "CHANGE" by reaching for an inside the beltway dinosaur longer in the tooth than McCain there, in years, if not in style.

He disses the foundation of the country as seekers of refuge in guns and religion.

He spends the small amount of time he has as a legislator (not executive) by non-commiting votes as "present"...IOW, no responsibility for anything that can get tagged negatively to his political aspirations.

And his answer to problems he has no experience or judgment in answering??? TAX YOU; create high joblessness by taxing those who create jobs beyond their ability to hire.

TAX AND SPEND; TAX AND SPEND; TAX AND SPEND;

OH YEAH....THE BIG "CHANGER"....OOPS, MEANT "MORE OF THE SAME"ER!

Posted by: KC at September 2, 2008 2:17 PM


True Hisman.

Satan is working overtime on this, he is doing everything in his power to make sure Sarah Palin is destoyed. He knows whats at stake here.

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 2:20 PM


HisMan @ 2:07,

I have said on this site that it is up to the church to eliminate abortion in the world. I still believe this, however, I am more convinced now, that it is the woman of the church that must lead this battle. And you my friends are doing this.

Go out and gather your sisters and pray and unite and join John's and Palin's campaign.

The Bible says that "a good man leaves a legacy to his children's children". This applies to a woman as well. Will we be good? Will we leave a legacy? Will we even have children's children to leave a legacy to? Not if the Liberals have their way.

It is up to you to make a difference. Now is the time. Join, unite, give, pray, and pray some more in what should now be the most revolutionary woman's movement in the country; the defeat of legalized abortion.

Well put. I would hope that every pro-life woman would take the opportunity during this election to address the abortion issue with their children. IMO, by age five or six, they are old enough to hear a very simple explanation, especially if they ask about it. I find that most women who are pro-choice/"I'D NEVER TELL ANYONE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR OWN BODIES" are so because no one ever took the time to explain abortion to them. MOMS/DADS take time to talk to your kids about THE EVIL THAT IS ABORTION!

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 2:20 PM


Hehee. You guys get so worked up.

Posted by: Geez Louise at September 2, 2008 2:24 PM


The problem with the "family values" movement is that it is shortsighted and extremely limited.

Apparently it is fine to pass off the responsibilities of your Down's Syndrome infant for someone else to raise. Ms. Palin already fulfilled the requirements of the "family values" crowd by not aborting her.

The fact that she knowingly endangered herself and the baby before delivery by taking an 8-hour flight, while IN LABOR culminating a high risk pregancy is apparently fine.

Same with thrusting your daughter's underaged pregnancy into the national limelight because you are under political attack. Great pro-life record, that.

Ms. Palin even proved her own commitment to abstinence-only education. As long as you stay on-message, it doesn't matter if you actually pay any attention to what your daughter is up to. We are told that Bristol got impregnated while on bed rest from school, suffering from infectious mononucleosis. But where's Mom? Apparently trying to arrange daycare for her infant. Oh, if only Bristol would have been at school benefitting from her Mom's version of "sex education", she'd be living the life of a normal girl right now.

Face it- Ms. Palin's commitment to "family values" is a sham. And you guys are revealing yourselves to be willing dupes for your beloved party politics.

Posted by: merge divide at September 2, 2008 2:27 PM


Geez:

You've left out the most important qualification:

Character.

Obama has none, Palin exudes character.

Isn't it amazing too that you are so threatened by Palin that you are comparing the qualifications of Obama, the one running for President to Palin, who is running for Vice President. Just so that we don't let your little rant get in the way of reality, here's John McCain's qualifcations:

John McCain has been an outspoken advocate for the reform of government institutions, and has fought and won to change a campaign finance system that favors the interests of a special few over the needs of the majority. Millions of Americans are now rallying to John McCain's campaign for the presidency and to his cause of reforming the institutions of government and were inspired to fight for causes greater than their self interests.

John McCain was first elected to represent the state of Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. As a longtime admirer of Ronald Reagan, McCain was an early foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. He served two terms in the House before being elected to the Senate in 1985. He was re-elected to a third Senate term in November 1998. In that election, he received nearly 70% of the vote, a total which included 65% of the women's vote, 55% of the Hispanic vote, and even 40% of the Democrats.

Senator McCain is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and has in that capacity become a recognized leader on telecommunications and aviation issues, stressing the need to promote competition and government deregulation in the industries that are so important to the growth of our economy.

Senator McCain has received numerous awards from taxpayer and foreign policy organizations for his distinguished public service and conservative leadership. In 1997, he was named one of the "25 Most Influential People in America" by Time magazine.

The son and grandson of prominent Navy admirals, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. After graduating from the United States Naval Academy in 1958, McCain began a twenty-two year career as a naval aviator. In 1967, he was shot down over Vietnam and held as a prisoner-of-war in Hanoi for five and a half years (1967-1973), much of it in solitary confinement. He retired from the Navy as a Captain in 1981. McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 2:27 PM


Merge Divide,

Your comments are TOO hilarious I must say. So much for us conservatives wanting women to sit at home in the kitchen where they belong. Seems Democrats have no problem with that kind of attitude when it suits their political agenda. Sarah Palin must really be scaring you guys. A woman VP candidate with a big family AND has a job. She's really giving you guys a run for your money.

Hehe, I'll just sit back and laugh while you guys run around like chickens with your heads cut off. It's really pretty funny to watch.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 2:34 PM


Is this what o'bama meant when he said he did not want his daughters to 'be punished with a baby'?

Posted by: kbhvac at September 2, 2008 2:37 PM


merge,
Ms. Palin even proved her own commitment to abstinence-only education.

Do you have a source for this? I've yet to see it. Thanks.

Did you read Mary's post at 1:40 and mine at 1:51? Your argument is irrational.

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 2:38 PM


Hi Elizabeth!
Good to see you!

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 2:39 PM


On a different topic, at 3:00 PM in Geneva, IL, Judge Brawka will be handing down a decision on the SLAPP motion Planned Parenthood has filed in the libel case brought against them by Eric and Joe Scheidler. Please offer your prayers on behalf of these courageous pro life warriors.

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 2:40 PM


Nutjob alert:

Sarah Palin:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Posted by: PeachPit at September 2, 2008 2:40 PM


PP,
You're such a cynic. Cheer up.

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 2:41 PM


DeeL @ 2:40
Thanks for the info. I'm praying for the Scheidlers.

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 2:42 PM


Hi Janet!

I have been gone most of the day because I have started school again. Microbiology is pretty interesting stuff though! Anyway, I just like to offer my 2 cents in these extremely long threads when I can! How is your day going?!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 2:44 PM


Frankly, I have little to no comment on what's happening in Palin's family. What she does with her children is her own business. As a pro-choice woman, I look at this as the Palin family supporting the daughter's CHOICE to have a child, regardless of how I would personally act/respond in the same situation.

I just want to get back to the issues, which is Palin's potential policy making and influence as a member of executive government. This crap about her daughter and boyfriend is not really what needs to be analyzed. It's Palin.

Her positions and 'values' make my skin crawl, but I am smart enough to know that concentrating on whether or not she's making poor parenting choices is the least of my concerns right now.

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 2:48 PM


Merge Divide,

How do you know for a fact the responsibility of her DS child has been passed off to someone else. The child has a father does he not? He has older siblings. Is Obama passing off the responsibility of fatherhood by running for president?

Exactly what do you mean by IN LABOR? Very early labor? Labor can be mild and continue for hours. Real labor can be mistaken for false labor. Did Palin know for certain she was in labor? Could the plane have not landed were it necessary to get her to a hospital? Ever hear of babies born on planes or planes being rerouted because a woman went into labor or didn't realize she was in labor?
What do you mean thrusting her daughter's pregnancy into the national limelight? Its the MSM and lefties having a field day with it. To Obama's credit he has said this is off limits and he will fire any staffer who brings it up.
What do you know about the child's conception or where Palin was? I wasn't home 24/7 with my teens and couldn't be. So what if her mother was arranging day care? Women do it all the time. Do you have some issue with that?
Admit it, if she had aborted her DS child and her daughter, you'd howl like a banshee about what a hypocritical PL person she is, preaching to others but taking the easy way out for herself.
I suspect the fact she lives her PL convictions is what really has you PO'd.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 2:48 PM


Her positions and 'values' make my skin crawl

Obama's extreme pro death positions and absolute lack of values makes me want to vomit.

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 2:52 PM


PP 2:40PM

Just sounds to me like the lady is expressing her religious views. In America we are all free to do so. You are just as free to agree or disagree.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 2:55 PM


Danielle,

Thank you. You sum it up very well. While you and I disagree politically concerning Palin we both agree her family issues are not the concern here. Now if only the MSM and left wing bloggers would share your insight.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 2:58 PM


Mary,
They didn't seem to have any problem with Nancy Pelosi spouting off about her "ardent" Catholicism, did they?

Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 2:59 PM


DeeL, 2:52 p.m.

AMEN!

What exactly about her positions make your skin crawl, Danielle?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 2:59 PM


Elizabeth,
Microbiology sounds perfect for this blog! You'll be giving tutorials by the end of the class, right? :) Good luck. My day is going good, except it feels like a Monday again! I'm still celebrating the Palin nomination! Yahoo!

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 3:00 PM


"Her positions and 'values' make my skin crawl, but I am smart enough to know that concentrating on whether or not she's making poor parenting choices is the least of my concerns right now.

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 2:48 PM"

So "life" is a poor "parenting" choice?

Please, please, I've fallen and can't get up. Planned "Parenthood" has now spoken.

PS - I know some great dermatologists for that skin condition you have, however, what I really think you need is a good confession.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 3:01 PM


Danielle wrote:
Her positions and 'values' make my skin crawl, but I am smart enough to know that concentrating on whether or not she's making poor parenting choices is the least of my concerns right now.

Danielle, congratulations to you for joining Hal and Alexandra over on the sane side of the pro-choice fence. You guys are doing well to keep your heads about you, especially when so many others on the Left are going berserk.

As Saint Obama Himself once remarked:
Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

So far, all of the attacks against Governor Palin seem to be truly small things. I'm eagerly awaiting any sign whatsoever that we can move past these small things and get back to discussing the big issues of our day.

Posted by: Naaman at September 2, 2008 3:04 PM


DeeL 2:59PM

...even though she didn't have a clue what she was talking about!

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 3:04 PM


Oops ... this line:
You make a big election about small things.
... is also part of Obama's quote. I screwed up my italics tags. :(

Posted by: Naaman at September 2, 2008 3:06 PM


Elizabeth,

Good luck on the microbiology. How are the nursing courses going?

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 3:09 PM


"Obama's extreme pro death positions and absolute lack of values makes me want to vomit."
Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 2:52 PM

-Great, then we're both on the same page in terms of our definitive voting decision come 11/4.


"What exactly about her positions make your skin crawl, Danielle?"
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 2:59 PM

-...are you sincerely interested, or is this bait for a fight? I only ask because we've both made our opinions known here, so I'm unclear as to what amount of clarity I can provide on my political views.


"So "life" is a poor "parenting" choice?
Please, please, I've fallen and can't get up. Planned "Parenthood" has now spoken.
PS - I know some great dermatologists for that skin condition you have, however, what I really think you need is a good confession."
Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 3:01 PM

-I did not say what you are alluding to in my post. Regardless of what side of this issue you're on, many people would have the debate as to whether or not a pregnant child in the household is the manifestation of poor parenting. I did not say her daughter is pregnant bc of her parents, but it is a discussion that arises where ever PG teens show up (right or wrong), as evidenced by the recent press.

Also a)I don't work for Planned Parenthood and b) confused by the dermalogical metaphors...

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 3:16 PM


HisMan 2:27PM

It should be mentioned that Sen. McCain refused an early realease from the prisoner of war camp where he was enduring isolation and torture.
It was offered to him as the son of an admiral but he refused to leave until all prisoners were also freed.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 3:17 PM


Liz:

My bet is that you will be inundated with "evolution propaganda" in your Microbiology class. I spent years in egineering and theological school. The tendancy is to believe, without question, everything the professors spout. Remember thay are just people too who are regurgitating infomation that was told to them.

True learning and wisdom comes when you can challenge anything that contradicts God's Word.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (New International Version)

4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Never forget that God created not only scientists but science as well.

Peace.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 3:19 PM


Danielle,

Well, I know your opinions on abortion, so I assume that you have a problem with Palin's abortion stance, but other then that, I really am curious.

I don't do much baiting for fights here, that's not my style.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 3:20 PM


"It should be mentioned that Sen. McCain refused an early realease from the prisoner of war camp where he was enduring isolation and torture.
It was offered to him as the son of an admiral but he refused to leave until all prisoners were also freed.

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 3:17 PM"

Yes Mary. And don't forget, that McCain's parents made a poor parenting choice as well. Wouldn't have just been better to abort him than to let him suffer 5 and 1/2 years in a POW camp? Jeesh, what were they thinking?

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 3:22 PM


HisMan,

No worries. I believe God created science and scientists as well. :) Microbiology is more the study of really cool things like bacteria and viruses that cause diseases, etc. I'm sure I'll be washing my hands a lot more after I take this class. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 3:27 PM


For those moonbats who are gleefully awaiting the Evangelical backlash against the Palins ... keep waiting:
As for now, at least, evangelicals seem to be completely on Palin’s side. And McCain’s. This is a group that has been skeptical of McCain in the past. Now, it’s probably fair to say that he has never been more popular among evangelicals than he is at this moment. Whether that will last, or whether Palin will cost McCain support among other voters, is not yet clear. But within the confines of the Republican Convention, McCain’s surprising choice of Palin — and the equally surprising news about her family — is paying off.

Source:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTg1NjE5YWMyYWIxNjM1ZWZhODhjZTE5Zjk1NzU0OGY
(H/T: JivinJehoshaphat)

Read the whole article. It's a good insight into the way that most Evangelicals think. Yeah, we have a few modern-day Pharisees in our midst, but they're not the majority. Christians know Grace. We know that we are all fallen, sinful creatures, and that only the love of God in Christ Jesus can save us. We know that we are all imperfect -- all of us -- and that we all need forgiveness.

We also know, as CS Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, that God does not make superficial judgments. Your actions matter less than your heart. In other words, it's less important that someone sins -- because we all sin -- then how that person deals with sin. Does he attempt to pass off the sin as trivial or (worse yet) not sinful? Does he try to "spin" his way out of sin? These actions are the sign of the willful, unrepentant sinner. More relevant to this election, they are also signs of bad character.

On the other hand, does he admit the sin, show repentance, and do his best to bring good out of a bad situation? That's what Christians look to see. That's the sign of a sinner saved by grace ... and that's what the Palin family is doing.

Evangelicals aren't perfect people. We all have sins in our past. I used to be an abortion-clinic escort, for example. Many Evangelicals have struggled with exactly the same problem that the Palins are facing right now. Been there, done that, wearing the scars. Bad situations are a dime a dozen, because this world has fallen. The important part is how we deal with those bad situations....

Go Palins!

Posted by: Naaman at September 2, 2008 3:31 PM


Also a)I don't work for Planned Parenthood and b) confused by the dermalogical metaphors...

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 3:16 PM

Let me explain:

a) What you said is exactly what PP says. You may not collect a paycheck from them but you do "work" for them as you just regurgitated their whole propaganda theme.

b) The reference to a dermatologist was in response to your "skin crawl" comment. While someone may suggest you go see a dermatologist for that condition, I think the real problem is you need a change of heart, i.e., via a good confession.

Look Danielle, abortion is murder and that's it. Nothing, nothing and nothing will ever change that foundational truth. It's a simple concept and you would do well to really, really 'think' about it.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 3:40 PM


"Well, I know your opinions on abortion, so I assume that you have a problem with Palin's abortion stance, but other then that, I really am curious."

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 3:20 PM


-Well, I oppose her on virtually every issue, including her:
1) Opposition to abortion
2) Opposition to stem cell research
3) Opposition to gay marriage/civil union and push to 'preserve sanctity of marriage'
4) Promotion of creationism in school/'intelligent design'
5) Approval of offshore drilling
6) Opposition to sex education
7) Membership to NRA

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 3:43 PM


Danielle @ 3:16 PM b) confused by the dermalogical metaphors...

Danielle - what's a dermalogical metaphor? Did you mean dermatological? (Unless you're working for a specific company...)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 2, 2008 3:50 PM


a) What you said is exactly what PP says. You may not collect a paycheck from them but you do "work" for them as you just regurgitated their whole propaganda theme.

b) The reference to a dermatologist was in response to your "skin crawl" comment. While someone may suggest you go see a dermatologist for that condition, I think the real problem is you need a change of heart, i.e., via a good confession.

Look Danielle, abortion is murder and that's it. Nothing, nothing and nothing will ever change that foundational truth. It's a simple concept and you would do well to really, really 'think' about it.
Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 3:40 PM

-Hmm, maybe I am repeating what I hear at PP, since I do volunteer for them. But, I would argue instead that I found an organization that shared my opinions on reproductive rights and access to abortion (an opinion formed long, long ago while still a pre-teen, long before I knew what PP was) and sought them out.

-As soon as I hit 'post' before, I figured out the skin bit, so, my bad. Unfortunately, I don't see myself having a change of heart any quicker than you would, but that's ok! You're entitled to your opinion, so long as you impose it on others.

Anyway, thank you for getting to the point clearly and plainly. You think abortion is murder - I don't. Therein lies the rub as they say, yes? End of story.

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 3:53 PM


Danielle, her's you lastest psot with my comments in parentheses.

-Well, I oppose her on virtually every issue, including her:
1) Opposition to abortion (I thought you were pro-choice?)
2) Opposition to stem cell research (She opposes embryonic stem cell research which scientists are finding is a dead end.)
3) Opposition to gay marriage/civil union and push to 'preserve sanctity of marriage' (No such thing as gay marriage, how can you support something that doesn't exist?)
4) Promotion of creationism in school/'intelligent design' (Sounds like openmindedness to me especially when evolution is a religion in and of intself. What about separation of church and state, hmmmm?).
5) Approval of offshore drilling (Yes and in ANWR too, as well as wind, natural gas, solar, nuclear, and geotehrmal energy).
6) Opposition to sex education (No, she supports abstinence education)
7) Membership to NRA (What, you got a problem with the Constitution?)

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 3:43 PM

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 3:56 PM


I see some of you are struggling to understand how BHO can say that he has more "administrative experience" than Governor Palin. Well I found out today that he was referring to his "experience" as the "administrator" of his own presidential campaign, which of course has been going on for at least since he was first elected to the US Senate.

I hope that clears it up for you. :D

Posted by: Doyle at September 2, 2008 4:00 PM


Danielle,

"Opposition to stem cell research"

That would be embryonic stem cell research, the kind that harvests and kills embryos for their stem cells. She is fine with stem cell research that does not kill human beings.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 2, 2008 4:01 PM


Law degree from Harvard Law School. Editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. Graduated Magna Cum Laude. Majored in Constitutional Law. 2+ yrs.
Posted by: Geez Louise at Sept 2, 2008 1:58 PM

And he still somehow thinks infants born alive from botched abortions should be DENIED personhood on Constitutional grounds:
A constitutional expert that denys a fully delivered baby born in the US personhood, sorry but it doesn't take a constitutional genius to know that they do in fact deserve the constitution status of personhood as established in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to US Constitution:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These children are fully born and breathing on their own, how could any constitutional scholar deny them their rights? My guess is that he has far less conviction and compassion for these weak/vulnrable persons then he has desire to advance the political agenda of the special interests that brought him to power in Illinois, Plannned Parenthood.

There is no excuse for a person with his supposed constitutional law expertise saying the Illinois Born Alive Infant Act was unconstitutional. What a complete jerk.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 2, 2008 4:03 PM


1) Opposition to abortion (I thought you were pro-choice?)
-I am, but she's not.

2) Opposition to stem cell research (She opposes embryonic stem cell research which scientists are finding is a dead end.)
-Yet and still, its an avenue of research that deserves review.

3) Opposition to gay marriage/civil union and push to 'preserve sanctity of marriage' (No such thing as gay marriage, how can you support something that doesn't exist?)
-I know it doesn't exist, but I would support it if it were. A leader that opposes this would ensure that it wouldn't.

4) Promotion of creationism in school/'intelligent design' (Sounds like openmindedness to me especially when evolution is a religion in and of intself. What about separation of church and state, hmmmm?).
-I can't comment on whether or not it's true that evolution is a religion but it certainly isn't one I've heard of. I do know that if creationism was introduced then we would have an erosion of church and state. We're talking about public schools, here. There's (or should be) plenty of opportunity to teach this privately.

5) Approval of offshore drilling (Yes and in ANWR too, as well as wind, natural gas, solar, nuclear, and geotehrmal energy).
-??? This is a statement, right, so nothing to answer...

6) Opposition to sex education (No, she supports abstinence education)
-Exactly. Abstinence education is not a comprehensive sex education.

7) Membership to NRA (What, you got a problem with the Constitution?)
-No, I just don't like guns and people who are fanatical about them and their right to use them are rather discomforting. I have no objective reason for this, it just rubs me the wrong way.

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 4:12 PM


Danielle just said at 3:43 PM:

-Well, I oppose her on virtually every issue, including her:
1) Opposition to abortion
2) Opposition to stem cell research

So you're okay with killing human beings at any stage of development provided you consider them "property" of either a woman or a research firm. Do you believe as Obama does, that "abortion-choice" continues after the pregnancy ends too?

3) Opposition to gay marriage/civil union and push to 'preserve sanctity of marriage'

Because "sanctity of marriage" - as well as naturally formed families is a bad thing?

4) Promotion of creationism in school/'intelligent design'

Actually Palin's not in favor of promoting creationism in the schools, but she doesn't presuppose evolution is more than a theory - meaning it should be taught as a theory, so other theories regarding the origin of humanity have as much merit.

5) Approval of offshore drilling

For you only intrauterine drilling and dissection is allowable. Do you mean all offshore drilling? Do you drive a car?

6) Opposition to sex education
Who's opposed to sex education? You must be opposed to teaching that abstinence is the best means to prevent pregnancies. You know the sad part about things Danielle - it's being revealed in the national media as we speak what the difference is regarding the gift of life and what choice really means. This election is about LIFE, whether you, Obama or all the other libs want it or not.

Many people are unwanted - but we don't allow people - even mothers and fathers, to kill them. That's the tragedy - you support killing the unwanted, by first labeling them unwanted, so others are free to killing them, and you call that choice.

7) Membership to NRA

You're against her membership in the NRA? Let me get this right - you're okay with killing human beings in the womb, but you're against shooting animals in the forest?

And you said you didn't work for Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 2, 2008 4:19 PM


Promoting teaching of creationism in schools opens the doors for teachings of all the creationist stories, all of which lack evidence and is a complete waste of time.

It's like asking teachers to teach supernatural "theorems" in their geometry class, or delving into intelligent falling when discussing the importance of gravity and physics in your engineering classes. There is simply no place. If you want to teach creationism do it in your own church. The rest of us need academic standards.

Also, there is no basis to the statement of evolution being a 'religion,' mainly in the sense that religion usually requires devotional or ritual services, a moral code, and a supernatural agent. Evolution doesn't do or have any of these.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 4:22 PM


"meaning it should be taught as a theory, so other theories regarding the origin of humanity have as much merit."

Except it is being taught as a scientific theory, and no other "theories" proposed by religion are scientific theories.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 4:24 PM


prettyinpink @ 4:22 PM

PIP - what's 10 to the 40th power?

Seriously - what's that look like?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 2, 2008 4:27 PM


pip,

Good points. I wasn't even going to go there cause that debate tires me so, but you put it very nicely.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 4:29 PM


prettyinpink @ 8 4:24 PM

What's a scientific theory? Doesn't that presuppose a scientific method - complete with empirical evidence?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 2, 2008 4:30 PM


Chris-

Let me guess. God made it?

But seriously, working with theoreticals/numbers is much different than squeezing supernatural explanations into scientific process. Numbers and math-these are human constructs just like the scientific method is.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 4:31 PM


Chris,

I re-responded to another user before you posted, that should help clarify some of your questions. I don't plan on addressing your questions unless there's something missing from that re-post.

Posted by: Danielle at September 2, 2008 4:33 PM


"What's a scientific theory? Doesn't that presuppose a scientific method - complete with empirical evidence?"


Wikipedia says it nicely:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them."


And why yes it does involve evidence and adherence to the method-and there's plenty of it.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 4:34 PM


Elizabeth,

It get's tiring for me, too. But sometimes I just can't help myself...

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 4:46 PM


prettyinpink @ 4:31 PM

Actually so few people are equipped to argue about the origin of life, and the validity of Darwinian evolution because they simply don't have the educational framework to support the arguments. It's a rather vast subject.

Darwinian evolution theory has too many presuppositions it fails to sufficiently answer, while special revelation of a Creator is rejected by others because in doing so one would have to categorically reject man as the measure of all things. Whether we like it or not we're in the center of our human experience and things get awfully huge and incomprehensible to us, as well as getting incomprehensibly small. If you averaged the entire known universe - it's actually about the size of the average human being.

Scientists today are finding the whole fine-tuning theory positively mind-boggling. Check this out:

http://thefutureofthings.com/news/1295/new-study-shows-solar-system-is-unique.html

In short - evolution as it's being pushed today as cultural philosophical fact becomes dangerous - it leads to cruelty, while creationism in it's strictest fundamental sense doesn't leave room for declarative revelation - and that puts God into a box of our own making, which also isn't right.

Oh - that number I asked about - John Polkinghorne, a contemporary of Stephen Hawking, explained that arriving at that particular number and realizing the significance of the improbability of life coming into being here on earth lead him to coming to Christ. How he explained the number:

Shooting a rifle 20 billion light-years across the known universe and hitting the target dead center - (the size of a dime).

Special indeed.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 2, 2008 4:53 PM


"Many people would have the debate as to whether or not a pregnant child in the household is the manifestation of poor parenting."

If I remember correctly, something like 40% of all women will become pregnant prior to age 20. That's a heck of a lot of "bad parenting".

About 35% of these women will have an abortion, and another 30%ish will have miscarriage. So,althought the teens are still getting pregnant, their parents can pat themselves on the back and judge all those "other" parents who have failed so miserably.

The truth of the matter is that women are designed to have children at about 17. Our society has tried to postpone this, but it is an uphil battle to fight against high fertility and high reproductive urges.

Posted by: Lauren at September 2, 2008 4:56 PM


at least abstinence education (When taught the right away, like Jason Evert's talks) talks about self esteem, etc.

We probably wouldn't have women being used for sex (like one night stands, sleeping around) if people took the sacredness of the martial act seriously:

For Example (of not taking the act 100% seriously):

"I need to take the Pill, cause I don't want to give myself completely to you, honey"

and

"make sure you use a condom, cause we wouldn't want to become pregnant, cause that sure would sure put a damper on our three week vacation to Europe and buying that $50,000 car" even though we can afford a child because we don't have a mortgage and we make a good income.


Jason Evert's talks have also been adjusted for secular society of public schools, in case anyone would be worried.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 2, 2008 4:59 PM


Chris,

Actually there are many scientists who reject parts of Darwinian evolution, but don't reject evolution as a mechanism. Evolution also does not describe how the beginning life forms arose, so the "origins of life" phrase can be misleading.


Improbability is not the proper argument. Your combination of DNA to produce you is extremely improbable- yet we observe recombination, gene alterations, reproduction and fertilization on a daily basis. Although he may be at your ideological opposite, Dawkins does a good job with the probability argument in The Blind Watchmaker.

Lastly: "In short - evolution as it's being pushed today as cultural philosophical fact becomes dangerous - it leads to cruelty"

This has no basis- firstly because evolution isn't largely being pushed as a philosophical fact as a result of scientific inquiry (but rather modern ontological thought) and there is no basis at all for it "leading to cruelty" that I'm aware of (in my opinion it brings more value to widespread need for social justice and the importance of treating the environment and ecosystem with respect). So, your objections don't have to do with classroom science, it's with the leaders of the ontological naturalistic movement- in that case, bring it to them.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 5:17 PM


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_politics

Looks like Palin was never a memeber of the AIP.

Posted by: Lauren at September 2, 2008 5:25 PM


PIP,
If you want to teach creationism do it in your own church. The rest of us need academic standards.

You know there are gazillions of people who don't agree. Why do you get to decide?

(And that's all I know about that. - Forest G.)

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 5:42 PM


"You know there are gazillions of people who don't agree. Why do you get to decide?"

Well the idea that scientific theories must stand the scrutiny of the scientific method, and scores of reviews by scientific peers, is pretty well standard. It seems pretty logical that scientists work together to advance science, mathematicians to advance math, etc right? We can't just squeeze non-reviewed non-research into science, and into the classroom because parents and evangelicals 'feel' like it should be. Or else I could legitimately demand intelligent falling to be allowed in physics or all the other 100's of creationist stories to be taught in science besides the Judeo-Christian one. Again, a total waste of time.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 5:49 PM


If you want to teach creationism do it in your own church. The rest of us need academic standards.

You know there are gazillions of people who don't agree. Why do you get to decide?
(And that's all I know about that. - Forest G.)

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 5:51 PM


LTL @ September 2, 2008 10:34 AM

You've been watching Jack Cafferty of CNN too much. When asked Sarah Palin said the only difference between a Hockey Mom and a Pit Bull is the Lipstick.

Posted by: Andy at September 2, 2008 5:54 PM


And there are people who believe an alternate version of creation, or believe in a combination of creation and evolution, etc.

Why does yours suddenly get the special status of being taught and no one else's?

Quite simply I think PIP has it right. Science by definition has experimentation and theories to back it, where as quite simply religion and creationism is currently a matter of faith alone, which many openly admit. Therefore creationism (aka "Intelligent Design") isn't exactly a valid SCIENTIFIC theory, and thus cannot be taught in a science course.

Posted by: Dan at September 2, 2008 5:56 PM


If anyones curious theres a PUMA site called www.hillaryclintonforum.net where they are all up in arms about the hullabaloo about Governor Palin. These women (most are women, but some are men) cannot stand 'The One' and feel at Denver the nomination was stolen. They are sending emails, talking to people and voting with their feet and wallet for McCain.

And this is just one such site.

PUMA means Party Unity My A--. I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.

Posted by: Andy at September 2, 2008 6:01 PM


Andy-

there are many. They are under the delusion Clinton will be able to win in 2012. My guess is Human nature will prove otherwise.

Posted by: Dan at September 2, 2008 6:02 PM


Bethany,

That is hysterical. I remember when I posted the "moving" maid back after one of our parties...I giggle every time I think of her.

Those poor people will be applauding long after you and I are dead!!!!

I wonder, do they ever sleep? If there's no on logged onto Jills, are they still clapping madly????

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 6:06 PM


2) Opposition to stem cell research (She opposes embryonic stem cell research which scientists are finding is a dead end.)
-Yet and still, its an avenue of research that deserves review.

So is taking the heart out of a twenty year old...an avenue of research that deserves review. After all, that heart could save someones life. So what if the twenty year has to die to get it!

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 6:11 PM


I wonder, do they ever sleep? If there's no on logged onto Jills, are they still clapping madly????

I don't know...probably! LOL
I can't for the life of me seem to remember the 'moving maid'...could you show me? :D

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 6:12 PM


So is taking the heart out of a twenty year old...an avenue of research that deserves review. After all, that heart could save someones life. So what if the twenty year has to die to get it!
Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 6:11 PM

Oh such a good point, Marykay.


Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 6:13 PM


PIP,

Numbers and math-these are human constructs just like the scientific method is.

I don't think that's true. I think math is something that just is. I think the human mind discovered it, but did not invent it.

They devised systems to manipulate it, but they didn't create it.

Just like music always existed. We just harnessed it.

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 6:15 PM


Looks like Jill's colleagues at World Net Daily also have the long knives out:

Sarah Palin's feminist folly
Posted: September 02, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Olivia St. John
© 2008

Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old, unmarried daughter of Sarah Palin, is pregnant. Although she plans to keep the baby and marry the father, her immoral shortcoming is still clear for the nation (and world) to see. Is it possible that her very busy, avowedly-feminist mother, the governor of Alaska and presumptive Republican vice-presidential candidate, could have made a moral difference, had she been more available for her daughter?

reality at September 2, 2008 12:51 PM

I often read World Net Daily but I don't always agree with everything written there. And this piece is one of them.
First of all, why is all the blame placed solely on the mother? Bristol has a father too. In fact, studies show that it is absent fathers who contribute to early sexual activity of daughters. I'm not saying Mr. Palin is an absentee father, but to blame just one parent and not both is not quite fair. At her age, her father is as important as her mother.


Maybe Sarah Palin's husband will have to help pick up the slack. I'm assuming he and the children are supportive of her career.
If JFK could have his children playing in the Oval Office, I don't see why Trig can't be with his mother. It will be interesting to see how all this works out.

I'm wondering if Sarah Palin was going to another country to do missionary work, if Olivia St. John would be so critical?

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 6:17 PM


I thought creationism was the Literal 6 days and Intelligent Design was "a higher being brought the universe and humans into existence". It doesn't outright say "GOD".


God said "BANG" and the Universe began. ;)


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 2, 2008 6:18 PM


Bethany: that is too funny.
Those poor people - clapping and clapping. They must be so tired.

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 6:19 PM


Bethany,

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 6:21 PM


PIP,

We can't just squeeze non-reviewed non-research into science, and into the classroom because parents and evangelicals 'feel' like it should be. Or else I could legitimately demand intelligent falling to be allowed in physics or all the other 100's of creationist stories to be taught in science besides the Judeo-Christian one. Again, a total waste of time.

I kind of understand from a scientific standpoint, but why do we have to call it scientific theory? It a science - religion blend of theories.
Are all scientists required to reject the existence of God? Don't we have free speech in this country? Why must they "demand" in the first place? I've never heard of "intelligent falling". What is it?

(And that's all I know about that -again- Forest G.)

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 6:22 PM


mk,

I think math is just a descriptive way to define the world around us. All of our little 'rules' 'proofs' etc. are ways for us to define what already 'is.' Science attempts to do the same, however it attempts to define a different part of our world. I'm not saying things don't abide by the order we describe them in, I'm saying our symbols, descriptions, explanations, etc. are ways to help us understand what is already there. Make sense?

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 6:23 PM


Just like music always existed. We just harnessed it.

You know, I used to get myself all upset with this very comparison. I mean, you can argue that if Pythagoras had never lived, then someone else would have eventually discovered the things we now attribute to him. Because they exist independent of human thought. But if Brahms had never lived, or if he'd died as a child, or something, then I would never had heard, let alone played, the sonata that eventually became my signature (and standard audition) piece. And what did Schubert have in store for his unfinished symphony? How could I play it in concert without going insane wondering what might have been? And so forth.

I used to actually get really upset and freaked out thinking about all the symphonies and sonatas and operas that were out there somewhere in the ether of wherever music theory comes from, all the possibilities that no one had yet put together and that maybe no one would ever put together. Lots of people besides Pythagoras could have eventually discovered his theorem, but could anyone except Beethoven have written the Eroica symphony? I always felt that music was much more dependent on the person composing it than math...things were on the person discovering it. It kept me up at night sometimes, and sometimes I'd have to take a break from practicing because I was close to tears thinking that if just one thing had changed, I might never have known such a beautiful musical phrase. I had to just stop thinking about it after a while. Even now my heart is getting all fluttery and I have to STOP. To everyone else's relief, no doubt.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 2, 2008 6:29 PM


"why do we have to call it scientific theory? It a science - religion blend of theories."
I'm not sure what you are saying here- why do we have to call ID a scientific theory to be taught as a scientific theory? Simply because inserting religion is there for philosophy's sake and not being able to separate them for study is a problem. We can't demonstrate God or observe God or test God, but we can test, observe, etc. the mechanisms that make up the theory of evolution. While it's okay to believe in ID or creationism or theistic evolution in an ontological sense, we can't confuse that with what we define within scientific barriers. Make sense?

"Are all scientists required to reject the existence of God?"
Not at all! Scientists are just required to understand the difference between Methodological naturalism and Ontological naturalism- the former being simply the way we define science to work and be, and the latter being a philosophical position (that nature is all there is). The majority of all scientists are religious- it's just impossible for religious beliefs to be tested under the scientific method-so science just doesn't go there.

"Don't we have free speech in this country?"
Of course, and any scientist is free to believe whatever they want philosophically. But we still need some teaching standards here or else we lose what has been working brilliantly for centuries.

"Why must they "demand" in the first place? I've never heard of "intelligent falling". What is it?"

Well, people are 'demanding' a philosophical position (ID) to be taught as a scientific theory- scientists and teachers all over are simply saying- NO, we don't think non-science should be taught in a science classroom! But, you are welcome to teach your own child whatever you want to!

Intelligent falling is the comparable position of ID in reference to gravity--simply to show what lengths this breach of standards can take us.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 6:32 PM


Dan wrote:
Science by definition has experimentation and theories to back it, where as quite simply religion and creationism is currently a matter of faith alone, which many openly admit. Therefore creationism (aka "Intelligent Design") isn't exactly a valid SCIENTIFIC theory, and thus cannot be taught in a science course.

This statement shows a very incomplete view of intelligent design. Intelligent design should be compared with anthropology.

In both cases, we study what we can see to draw conclusions about what we cannot see. Anthropologists look at an orderly formation of rocks (for example) and say to themselves, "Somebody must have placed those rocks in that way." Then the anthropologists study the rocks, study other rocks, study other artifacts from the same time period, and draw conclusions about ancient civilizations. The entire science of anthropology is based upon the understanding that human societies can be studied by analyzing the artifacts they leave behind.

Intelligent design (ID) works the same way. ID proponents see an organism and say, "Somebody must have designed such a complex system." Then the ID folks study the organism, study other organisms related to it, study other organisms from the same time period, and draw conclusions about the designer. The science of ID is based on the understanding that an intelligent designer can be studied by analyzing the artifacts that he/she/it/they leave behind.

Please understand the limitations of intelligent design! ID only claims that intelligence is a force in the creation of the universe as we know it. ID does not claim anything in particular about that intelligence! The intelligent designer can be God, Allah, Xenu, or even a small banana-nut muffin. In the same way, anthropologists can study Native Americans, Sumerians, Egyptians, or Mongolians. The important point is to learn all that we can about the intelligence behind the universe. In so doing, we also learn more about the universe itself.

Now ... imagine someone who looks at Stonehenge and says, "I wonder what random combination of wind, gravity, and erosion created this odd collection of rocks?" Wouldn't you think that person would be a bit odd? But that's what Darwinists do! They look at lifeforms -- the simplest of which is many times more complex than Stonehenge -- and they say, "I wonder what combination of environmental pressures and sheer random chance created this paramecium?"

Darwinists aren't scientists. At best, they're ignorant. At worst, they're sticking their heads in the sand to escape from reality.

Posted by: Naaman at September 2, 2008 6:37 PM


Mk, 6:21 cute!!!!

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 6:39 PM


PIP,

I'm not sure what you are saying here- why do we have to call ID a scientific theory to be taught as a scientific theory?

Close - "Why do we have to call ID a scientific theory to be taught in science? . Isn't there an acceptable "category" other than scientific theory that would allow it to be considered "teachable" given that it is not be up to certain standards? There is an elitism there that is a bit disconcerting.

I have to run... but I'll come back later. Thanks for your responses. (I'll bring you a box of chocolates when I return. - Forest G.)

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 6:44 PM


Hey Doug, in case you missed it, the buzz right now is not to attack "the candidate", but to go right after her kids! And you think that's "not a big deal"?

Woah, even the Obamanator told them to shut up!

Doyle, I did see that. As far as the political campaigns, kids are understood to be off-limits. Not to say there won't be eighty crillion nuts on the internet saying this or that, of course. ; )

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 6:53 PM


"Why do we have to call ID a scientific theory to be taught in science? . Isn't there an acceptable "category" other than scientific theory that would allow it to be considered "teachable" given that it is not be up to certain standards? There is an elitism there that is a bit disconcerting."

Well it is not science that is trying to push it as a scientific theory- it is the ID movement, so that's not a question that I can answer.

There is a category it can be taught in (and is)-- and that is philosophy or theology. The only reason it is not teachable under science is because science is by definition concerned with only natural things and processes. Natural phenomena have natural causes- it is describing this phenomena and determining these causes that science is concerned with--by it's very definition and philosophy of thought.

We as humans categorize things to better study them as we can the best. So by leaving the natural things in the natural category, and learning about supernatural things in the supernatural category, we can keep things straight. In my evolution class we did discuss creationism-but we discussed it to the extent that we realize the reasons it's not studied within the scientific realm and most of the criticisms they hurl against us that are unfounded.

When science is based around the scientific method, and God can't fit into that method, why fit it into science? It fits under philosophy/theology though- and we have discussed it in those classes. It's not elitism, it's the way things are set up to be. Breaking down the barriers within the method will take away from the rigorous process that has served us well and brought about major breakthroughs throughout the years. Breaking down methodological naturalism means you can just stop working to find out answers- when things seem complex we can just say "oh well- God did it" when in fact doing that has in the past led to large periods of stagnation.

Hope that helps. I'll be gone for a couple hours but feel free to ask more questions and I'll get to them. Thanks for the chocolates :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 6:54 PM


If I remember correctly, something like 40% of all women will become pregnant prior to age 20. That's a heck of a lot of "bad parenting".

About 35% of these women will have an abortion, and another 30%ish will have miscarriage. So,althought the teens are still getting pregnant, their parents can pat themselves on the back and judge all those "other" parents who have failed so miserably.

The truth of the matter is that women are designed to have children at about 17. Our society has tried to postpone this, but it is an uphil battle to fight against high fertility and high reproductive urges.

Posted by: Lauren at September 2, 2008 4:56 PM
.......................................................

Where do you get this age Lauren? Sounds like wishful thinking by dirty old men to me.

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 7:02 PM


Natural phenomena have natural causes- it is describing this phenomena and determining these causes that science is concerned with--by it's very definition and philosophy of thought.

What if it is determined by studying natural phenomena, that there was an intelligent designer involved? What if that is the conclusion that one comes to through studying the natural phenomena??

When science is based around the scientific method, and God can't fit into that method, why fit it into science?

You have no idea how incredibly offensive- and wrong- that statement actually is.

To imagine that an God, who created the entire world, and nature itself- 'can't fit' into science is absurd.

P.S.
My post is not an invitation for atheists to respond, as I am replying to a person who believes in God.

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:04 PM


Breaking down methodological naturalism means you can just stop working to find out answers- when things seem complex we can just say "oh well- God did it" when in fact doing that has in the past led to large periods of stagnation.

That is incredibly insulting. Honestly.

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:08 PM


Bethany,

But how does one measure that "intelligent designer" WITHIN the scientific method? If it can't be measured, what is science supposed to say about it exactly? THAT'S where the problem lies. Not that God DOESN'T fit into science, but that there's no SCIENTIFICALLY explainable way that He does at this point in time. So why would they (being scientists) try to explain something about God scientifically when they in a sense can't? They could use the Bible, but then it would turn into a theology course, see?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 7:09 PM


Doug, How do you see Palin as a small net negative? McCain's campaign raised over 10 million dollars in two days after the Palin announcement. What is your poll source?

Sandy, in looking at the action in the polls after the Palin announcement, McCain's popularity took another hit. I'm watching the average of the Rasmussen, Hotline, CNN, CBS and Gallup polls.

The day before the Biden announcement, Obama was up by 1.4% in those polls, averaged. His lead has since expanded, and last I saw it's now 6.4%, the highest point since June 30.

So across both Vice-presidential candidate announcements, Obama has gained.

I'm not saying this is "the end" for McCain or anything - polls don't mean all that much at this stage of the game and there is indeed some expected gain for McCain from the Republican convention.

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 7:10 PM


But how does one measure that "intelligent designer" WITHIN the scientific method?

How does one measure millions and billions of years within the scientific method?

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:10 PM


Lauren,

Some more interesting stats.

65% of colonial era brides were pregnant when they married.

Pilgrim or Puritan women were kidnapped by Indians and held prisoner for an extended period of time. They were rescued by their men, and fled back to the Indians.

My grandmother was pregnant with my mother when she got married.

Everything old is new again!

Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 7:14 PM


Doug,

You have to keep in mind that the Palin VP announcement occured right after the convention.
It is hard to determine if this is just a convention bounce or has anything to do with VP selection.


Posted by: Mary at September 2, 2008 7:19 PM


I don't quite get what you're getting at with that question Bethany, so if you could clarify that would help me answer your question even though you didn't really give an answer to the one I asked.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 7:19 PM


For those moonbats who are gleefully awaiting the Evangelical backlash against the Palins ... keep waiting:

Naaman, I don't think there would be "Evangelical backlash."

I'd say Palin appeals to people who were already going to vote for McCain, however, and he's hurting in the "battleground" states and doesn't need to solidify his position with Evangelicals but rather gain votes from moderates.

I don't have a crystal ball - for all I know McCain may win the election by 20 points.

For now, from prior to the Biden announcement through the Palin announcement to today, there's been a continuum of increasing support for Obama and the Democratic ticket.

At the least I think there would be a pause, if not a reversal, due to the Republican convention, so I'll be watching over the next couple weeks.

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 7:23 PM


To imagine that an God, who created the entire world, and nature itself- 'can't fit' into science is absurd.


The fact that the world is ordered and appears through scientific observation to follow a set of rules, suggests a omnipotent creator. These rules exist not only on a grand scale, such as within stars and the universe, but also on a particulate and cellular level.In fact, an intellectually honest scientist could only come to the conclusion that the world must have been created by some kind of intelligent being. To my mind the complexity of biological organisms suggests creation by a higher intelligence than ourselves.

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 7:25 PM


I thought it was an answer.

What I'm trying to say is, the idea that certain fossils have existed for so many 'billions' of years, is accepted as scientific knowledge... even though there's no truly reliable way to measure and prove scientifically that those numbers are true (as we cannot go back in time billions of years and prove that those things really were that old). People just assume these educated guesses are true, and accept it as "scientific" information. Without any proof.

Why is it that evidence pointing to intelligent designer can't just as well be accepted as a scientific theory, which we have evidence for, but might not be able to prove to everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:26 PM


Thank you, Patricia!

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:27 PM


You have to keep in mind that the Palin VP announcement occured right after the convention. It is hard to determine if this is just a convention bounce or has anything to do with VP selection.

Mary, certainly agreed - I see no way to "take out" the convention effect and see only the V.P. choice poll change.

We'll see what the Republican convention does. If there isn't enough "bounce" therefrom, I think you'll see some more easily identifiable desperation from the McCain camp. IMO the choice of Palin showed some real concern, but that's certainly arguable.

I've never pounded the table, cheering for Biden, either. He's a smart guy, but often people want to tell him to "just shut your mouth, Joe....."

Posted by: Doug at September 2, 2008 7:28 PM


Abstinence never fails......
Posted by: kbhvac at September 1, 2008 11:09 PM

KBHvac your claim has some serious contradictory evidence - as exhibit A, I direct you to a photo of the pregnant Bristol Palin - who presumably got an earful of abstinence education.

Posted by: phylosopher at September 2, 2008 7:47 PM


who presumably got an earful of abstinence education.

That she definitely didn't practice! So who's fault is that anyway? Her parents for teaching it to her? Yeahhhh...right.

You can talk to your kids about condoms, protection until you're blue in the face, but I'm pretty sure it's up to them to listen and follow through. Just like abstinence. At the end of the day, it's up to the individual to make the right decision. If they don't, they live with the consequences, which is exactly what Bristol is doing right now.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 2, 2008 7:51 PM


Phylo, Bristol was went to middle and high school in a public school which had sex ed as part of it's health class.

The fact that Palin supports abstinence ed doesn't mean that this is what her daughter was taught.

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:56 PM


The fact that the world is ordered and appears through scientific observation to follow a set of rules, suggests a omnipotent creator.

..............................................................

I find the human need to order the world to be no different than creating a god to give it that order.
When there were/are no answers, pretend there is a man that did/does possess the answers?
The difference between science and religion to me is that religion pretends to have all the answers and then must back track and recant absolutely inaccurate declarations while science does not require worship of scientific findings to begin with.

These rules exist not only on a grand scale, such as within stars and the universe, but also on a particulate and cellular level.In fact, an intellectually honest scientist could only come to the conclusion that the world must have been created by some kind of intelligent being. To my mind the complexity of biological organisms suggests creation by a higher intelligence than ourselves.

Posted by: Patricia at September 2, 2008 7:25 PM

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 7:59 PM


"In fact, an intellectually honest scientist could only come to the conclusion that the world must have been created by some kind of intelligent being. To my mind the complexity of biological organisms suggests creation by a higher intelligence than ourselves."

Sally, I agree.

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 8:09 PM


Actually, I believe it was the pregnancy itself that caused the need for the revelation of the forthcoming child. Obama didn't make her have sex with the quarterback. Lets not extend causality to those who had no hand in the matter. It is great that Palin has assigned responsability to her daughter, now I should think that you would as well.

It is repugnant to spread scandal about someone, but it is just as repugnant to blame others for ones own issues.

Please Jill, you've lowered the bar for discourse, and in the process rendered your pet cause injured. If having a child is no crime, then where is the scandal that you so deeply need.

Posted by: Yo La Tango at September 2, 2008 8:19 PM


"So is taking the heart out of a twenty year old...an avenue of research that deserves review. After all, that heart could save someones life. So what if the twenty year has to die to get it!"

Posted by: mk at September 2, 2008 6:11 PM

-I understand what you're getting at. You equate the 20 year old and the embryo as the same. I don't.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 2, 2008 8:25 PM


"In fact, an intellectually honest scientist could only come to the conclusion that the world must have been created by some kind of intelligent being. To my mind the complexity of biological organisms suggests creation by a higher intelligence than ourselves."

Sally, I agree.

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 8:09 PM
...............................................................

Of course you do Jasper.

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 8:25 PM


Phylo, Bristol was went to middle and high school in a public school which had sex ed as part of it's health class.

The fact that Palin supports abstinence ed doesn't mean that this is what her daughter was taught.

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:56 PM
.................................................................

Are you saying that Palin doesn't walk the walk? She didn't explain to her daughter how pregnancies come to be? Or perhaps she didn't threaten the child with eternal damnation quite enough.
What kind of weak parent believes that schools have more influence than family?

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 8:29 PM


Oh, just when I thought Sally saw the light. I just noticed it was a comment from Patricia...

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 8:30 PM


HisMan wrote:
"My bet is that you will be inundated with "evolution propaganda" in your Microbiology class. I spent years in egineering and theological school. The tendancy is to believe, without question, everything the professors spout. Remember thay are just people too who are regurgitating infomation that was told to them."

Just like that confession to a priest you were urging on someone earlier HisMan? Where was the caveat that the priest is just a person who is regurgitating information that was told to him? That faith is nothing more that a tendency to believe without question everything the priest spouts?
Blather on, h-man! But would you please note that the red underscore means you should check your spelling before hitting post?

Posted by: phylosopher at September 2, 2008 8:37 PM


In a sense I have to agree with Sally, since when do kids listen to teachers more than their parents? They may not necessarily listen to either all that well, but parents/family tend to win out unless the son/daughter is going through some rebellious phase, simply didn't listen, or didn't care either way. Who knows what happened here, maybe she ignored comprehensive sex ed and listened to her mother but ended up knowing nothing about condoms, birth control, etc, maybe she didn't believe her teachers because Mom is more experienced and knows more about it, or maybe she just didn't care. In all reality it doesn't matter how it happened, just that it happened and that people should lay off. This isn't an argument over sex ed, this is a seventeen year old deciding to bear a child to term and being forced to do so publicly because of the arena that our national politics has become.

Posted by: Dan at September 2, 2008 8:40 PM


phylosopher-

Going after spelling is a pretty weak point first off. Everyone messes up, it happens. Second, not all browsers have spell check built in. I mean, Firefox's is pretty amazing and Chrome's is on its way, but I don't think all browsers have spell check built in yet, so bringing it up is kind of pointless.

As for professor's making mistakes:
yes, it does happen, but often it isnt over a fundamental principal in their area of expertise but rather a fringe piece of information or details that tend not to matter in the scheme of things. As for them simply regurgitating I have to dsagree. Professors tend to be the ones who absolutely love their topic of choice and have a true passion for it and to simply be spitting out information isn't enjoyable for them. They want people to see their subject how they do, and appreciate it as they do. That cant be done simply by spitting up the same information over and over again. It means continuing studiies/work/research/etc.

Posted by: Dan at September 2, 2008 8:46 PM


Geez Louise -- Obama's education background is impressive but given that, he hasn't really accomplished anything. He bounces from job to job without really accomplishing much. His autobiography is very bitter which is a little disturbing.

Posted by: Eileen at September 2, 2008 8:51 PM


Regarding sex ed etc.

Good lord people. Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that HALF of all unplanned pregnancies happened when the woman was using birth control.

4 in 10 women will have at least one pregnancy befor age 20.

It is NOTHING shocking that a 17 year old is pregnant. Only in the past 50 years have we manufactured the notion that a 17 year old having a baby is "abnormal". Perhaps we should change the way society deals with teen pregnancy rather than do so much hand wringing over how to stop reproduction.

Seriously. All the problems from older teens having babies are societal problems, not medical ones. Instead of shaming young pregnant women, we should encourage marriage prior to 30 and responsibility of our teens.

Posted by: Lauren at September 2, 2008 9:00 PM


Phylo, Bristol was went to middle and high school in a public school which had sex ed as part of it's health class.

The fact that Palin supports abstinence ed doesn't mean that this is what her daughter was taught.

Posted by: Bethany at September 2, 2008 7:56 PM

I don't doubt this, but I've been looking for a good source for two days to substantiate that she had more than abstinence ed. Do you have one? Thanks.

PIP's coming from a totally different place on this evolution stuff - she can't reconcile with the Bible. Maybe that's where they got the name "Big Bang" (Creationists' Bibles all dropping to the floor at once)?

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 9:03 PM


How long has preview been working?

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 9:05 PM


Abstinence never fails......
Posted by: kbhvac at September 1, 2008 11:09 PM

KBHvac your claim has some serious contradictory evidence - as exhibit A, I direct you to a photo of the pregnant Bristol Palin - who presumably got an earful of abstinence education.
Posted by: phylosopher at September 2, 2008 7:47 PM
******************************************

I'm pretty sure the point was that actual abstinence is a fail-proof method. Regardless of whether or not one receives "abstinence education," one can choose or NOT choose to remain abstinent. Many who receive abstinence education choose to remain so, and do whatever is in their power to remain accountable. Others do not. Abstinence is never easy, but when utilized, it prevents pregnancy and disease 100% of the time. ;)

Posted by: Kel at September 2, 2008 9:11 PM


No one has said that every teen who is taught abstinence is going to remain a virgin but if you don't teach it and instead tell teens that they can't control their urges, etc. then there are going to be more teens than not who will become sexually active.

Posted by: Eileen at September 2, 2008 9:16 PM


"Promoting teaching of creationism in schools opens the doors for teachings of all the creationist stories, all of which lack evidence and is a complete waste of time.

It's like asking teachers to teach supernatural "theorems" in their geometry class, or delving into intelligent falling when discussing the importance of gravity and physics in your engineering classes. There is simply no place. If you want to teach creationism do it in your own church. The rest of us need academic standards.

Also, there is no basis to the statement of evolution being a 'religion,' mainly in the sense that religion usually requires devotional or ritual services, a moral code, and a supernatural agent. Evolution doesn't do or have any of these.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 4:22 PM"

Excuse me PIP, there you go again. You're no religious expert. I am. And you're no engienering expert. I am.

The only thing a religion or cult requires is a creed and an object of worship. Regarding evolution the creed is the theory of evolution itself, which if you were totally honest about it, has so many holes and assumptions, that faith is required to believe it and you know this so stop playing dumb about it. The object of worship is the creed itself and Charles Darwin as it's originator. Last time I checked, he's dead and buried and not worth following.

Secondly, the last time I got on an airplace and the engines produced thrust and the wings lifted the heavier than air machine into the air, I think I was putting my trust in the engineers and scientists that could actually propose a theory and prove it by experimenation. I mean if the FAA had do base the qualification testing of a jet engine based on the same type pf proof you give for evolution, we'd all still be travelling in trains.

The apple dropping off the tree experiment is a very good one as well as, the applications of the Laws of Thermodynamics, Control Theory, Bernoulli's Equation, Tubomachinery Design, Electrical Theory, Fluid Dynamics, Heat Transfer, Strength of Materials, Dynamics, Physics, Vector Calculous, ad infinitum.

When, and I ask when has evolution ever been proven? Never, and it will never, ever be proven. It's is just a theory and will eventually be abandoned and thrown onto the trash heap of history at just another attempt at dissing God. And you're willing to believe evolution's lies which subject millions upon millions of people to the results of adherence to it's creed, i.e. disbeleif in a Crearo, while at the same time preventing millions upon millions of children to be taught God's word on the subject? It's totally amazing to me.

You use Wikipedia to define terms?

Well, I've got the eternal word of God which starts with, "In the beginning God...." as well as these:

Matthew 13:35
So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

Matthew 25:34
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

John 17:24
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 8:19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.

Romans 8:20
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope

Romans 8:21
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Romans 8:39
neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Hebrews 4:4
And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."

Hebrews 4:13
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Hebrews 9:11
When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

Hebrews 9:26
Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

1 Peter 1:20
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

2 Peter 3:4
They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

Revelation 3:14
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

Revelation 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

Revelation 17:8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

PIP, the God I believe in didn't need evolution to create the world or the Universe. The scientists that try to weave this into their theology are wolves in sheep's clothing and aren't courageous enough to stand for the truth for fear of the consequences. And why didn't God need evolutoin to create the world? Because all He had to do was speak it into existence and that's what He did. That's my God, an infinite Being with infinite power, a huge God, a mighty God. Not some excuse for a god bound by the limits of space and time.

Stop compromising and choose today whom you will serve. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 9:19 PM


Eileen-

Comprehensive sex ed pushes abstinence as the only sure fire method, and does so strongly. It simply then says if you choose to disregard that, whatever the reason, there are ways that put you at lower risk than others of std, pregnancy, etc.

Posted by: Dan at September 2, 2008 9:25 PM


kel, you stated it much better!

Posted by: Eileen at September 2, 2008 9:25 PM


And excuse me friends, the pill is not birth control, it's conception control (and I understand that the pill can be an abortifascient, but, that's not how it's marketed). In fact, a woman could take birth control pills after a conception has taken hold and it would do absolutely nothing to control the birth of the human being growing inside her body.

Words mean things. Lies use the distortion of words and their meanings to decieve, to redefine something that isn't as is. Birth control is abortion. Abortion is birth control. And being pro-choice means you are pro-abortion. Let's start being semantically honest and cut all the crap that has resulted in the murder of 50,000,000, that's 50,000,000 human beings over the last 35 years and in just this country and has now subject our country to God's judgement.

Let's all start thinking and using our God given talents to reason, please.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 9:29 PM


HisMan-

you forget that gravity itself is "just a theory" as are some of the other fundamental ideas in science. A theory isnt just a supposition, there is proof behind it.

And Microevolution has been observed ad nauseam, proving the theory is certainly viable, just as the Wright aircraft proved that a large scale flying machine could be a viable idea. Obviously small scale != large scale, but it adds more likelihood. Macro evolution is impossible for one generation of scientists to observe simply because it takes so long.

Posted by: Dan at September 2, 2008 9:29 PM


Dan, but then aren't you setting them up for failure by including those other ways. Plus, you are basically playing Russian roulette with their lives -- some may not get an STD or pregnant but many will.

Posted by: Eileen at September 2, 2008 9:31 PM


"Just like that confession to a priest you were urging on someone earlier HisMan? Where was the caveat that the priest is just a person who is regurgitating information that was told to him? That faith is nothing more that a tendency to believe without question everything the priest spouts?
Blather on, h-man! But would you please note that the red underscore means you should check your spelling before hitting post?

Posted by: phylosopher at September 2, 2008 8:37 PM"

Wrong again Phylo. I never said confession to a priest. I'm not Catholic or didn't you know that?

You know Phylo, making statements and conclusions based on false assumptions is the lowest form of knowledge.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 9:33 PM


Alright, I'm going to go do some reading (Jefferson Bible to be exact) and go to bed. Class at 10 tomorrow, day 2 here I come, lol.

I'll respond to any of my posts that get picked apart whenever I can, if I don't and you want me to respond bug me :) lol

Posted by: Dan at September 2, 2008 9:36 PM


Eileen-

No, not really. Many of those who get abstinance only but eventually choose to have sex are less likely to use a condom, or any other sort of protection or birth control because they dont know how to or believe they dont work well enough that they warrant using. However with comprehensive the knowledge is there, so for those who choose to engage in sex do so with a smaller chance of pregnancy or stds than those who do not know how to correctly use a condom or birth control.

Posted by: Dan at September 2, 2008 9:40 PM


No one has said that every teen who is taught abstinence is going to remain a virgin but if you don't teach it and instead tell teens that they can't control their urges, etc. then there are going to be more teens than not who will become sexually active.
Posted by: Eileen at September 2, 2008 9:16 PM
.......................................................

And what does that abstinence teaching consist of? Controlling urges? Are you the anorexic's anon codependent den mother? Women having urges of any kind is quite obscene and out of god's will isn't it. Better to abort your mind than abort god's offering of sperm.

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 9:45 PM


Seriously. All the problems from older teens having babies are societal problems, not medical ones. Instead of shaming young pregnant women, we should encourage marriage prior to 30 and responsibility of our teens.

Posted by: Lauren at September 2, 2008 9:00 PM
........................................................................

What problems do you see from older teens having babies?

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 9:50 PM


Dan:

Gravity is a theory whose effects can be measured in real time. I cannot make observations of things that I assume occured millions of years ago, which is a colossal assumption, and use that in the context of my proof. Because.....if that one assumption is wrong...the theory of evolution falls apart as the house of cards that it is. When you can go back in a time machine at different periods in time and physically demonstrate the changes the theory of evolution requires, I'll believe it. You can't and I never will.

And please, the existence of microevolution as a proof or viabilty of general macroevolution is no proof at all. It just means that after God created the universe as He described in His Word, i.e., in six days, that a process was started. Many processes were started. Hence even more reason to at least teach creationism in public schools along side evolution. The real smart kids will figure it out for themselves and I have absolutely no worries about that at all.

And Mr. Arsenault:

Don't be intimidated by these eggheads who think they've got God wrapped around their pencils. You don't have to be an expert in evolution to know that it's a crock. Just look at it's results.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 9:51 PM


Oh, just when I thought Sally saw the light. I just noticed it was a comment from Patricia...

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 8:30 PM
..........................................................

Always a day late and a dollar short eh Jasp?

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 9:54 PM


Women having urges of any kind is quite obscene and out of god's will isn't it. Better to abort your mind than abort god's offering of sperm.
Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 9:45 PM
*******************************************

Oh, yeah, Sally, that's EXACTLY what Eileen said.

You are choosing to find offense here where there is none. Controlling one's urges is often for one's benefit, and this goes for men and women alike. For example, if one has urges to gorge oneself on food constantly, should one not be taught to control that urge for one's health and well-being?

There are things that are wonderful and beneficial in the right timing and proportion, and yet those same things can be abused and misused when in the wrong context and proportion...sex, food, medicines, etc.

As C.S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity, (and I'm paraphrasing), if we went to a country where people gathered in a theatre and someone brought out a silver covered dish of food to the middle of the stage, and just when the lid was raised to where one could see a "peek" of the food, the lights were turned out...wouldn't we think that there was a strangely disproportionate focus on food in that place?

That is what we do with sex.

Posted by: Kel at September 2, 2008 9:58 PM


PIP:

Any academic standard that does not include the teaching of God's Word is just blowing in the wind.

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 10:03 PM


Bethany, Thanks for the applause. Forrest sends his regards - and chocolate.

Posted by: Janet at September 2, 2008 10:05 PM


Fred Thompson gave a great speech, so did Joe Libermann, a former Democrat who left the party of hate.

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 10:11 PM


Jill, I think by "making a mistake" Obama DIDN'T mean having premarital sex. The mistake Obama's referring to would be a slip in the birth control. By 'mistake' he is talking about not taking enough measures to avoid a pregnancy while having sex. The adolescent sex itself (premarital or otherwise) is not the mistake if I have Obama pegged correctly.
You are giving him too much credit. Do you seriously think he doesn't approve of premarital sex if he is all for infanticide?!

Posted by: Xoce at September 2, 2008 10:38 PM


Oh, yeah, Sally, that's EXACTLY what Eileen said.

You are choosing to find offense here where there is none. Controlling one's urges is often for one's benefit, and this goes for men and women alike. For example, if one has urges to gorge oneself on food constantly, should one not be taught to control that urge for one's health and well-being?

There are things that are wonderful and beneficial in the right timing and proportion, and yet those same things can be abused and misused when in the wrong context and proportion...sex, food, medicines, etc.

As C.S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity, (and I'm paraphrasing), if we went to a country where people gathered in a theatre and someone brought out a silver covered dish of food to the middle of the stage, and just when the lid was raised to where one could see a "peek" of the food, the lights were turned out...wouldn't we think that there was a strangely disproportionate focus on food in that place?

That is what we do with sex.

Posted by: Kel at September 2, 2008 9:58 PM
...................................................

Does anorexia ring a bell?

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 10:42 PM


Phylospher,

He said: "But would you please note that the red underscore means you should check your spelling before hitting post?"

Red underscore? I dont see that on my computer? But it must be there because you apparently see one right...OH! I figured it out! You have something on your computer that we dont (like for example, you may have a Mac), but because it is the way you see it, you assume it must be how it is for everyone!

Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2008 10:49 PM


Sally: "Does anorexia ring a bell?"

Who is saying you should never have sex?

I miss SoMG already...

Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2008 10:53 PM


Smear merchant from MSNBC, Keith Olberwomen distorted BAIPA and covered for Obama.

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 11:00 PM


Kieth Olberman absolutely cucified Hillary when she metnioned Obama and assassination in the same sentence.

The guy really does hate women.

Achtung!!

Posted by: HisMan at September 2, 2008 11:06 PM


"What if it is determined by studying natural phenomena, that there was an intelligent designer involved?"
How will one determine that? Can an intelligent designer be measured? Can it be observed? Can we experiment over and over again and reliably observe God designing things?


"What if that is the conclusion that one comes to through studying the natural phenomena??"
What natural aspect will point to a supernatural being? The very semantics of that sentence says it all. Supernatural beings are not found in the natural world. There is no way to study it.


"To imagine that an God, who created the entire world, and nature itself- 'can't fit' into science is absurd."

Bethany, when we make studies and categories we like to be consistent. We leave theological studies to study the supernatural deity(s) and we leave science to study nature. Since we can't quantify or in any way measure God, SCIENCE simply can't go there. It's not a negative or positive thing, Bethany. Or else I could simply say that the complexity of the cell leads me to believe that Zeus and the multitude of gods created it- because there is about the same amount of evidence (that is why they call it faith!).

"Breaking down methodological naturalism means you can just stop working to find out answers- when things seem complex we can just say "oh well- God did it" when in fact doing that has in the past led to large periods of stagnation.

That is incredibly insulting. Honestly."

In what way. Already ID scientists are throwing their hands up, claiming that some structures are so complex that we can't explain them. (Now we are actually coming able to, so I don't know what they say about that). I honestly don't worry about the institution itself- it's strong enough on its own. I only worry when non-scientists are threatening to tell scientists what is science and how to teach it. I'd call that pretty insulting, wouldn't you?

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 11:15 PM


"How does one measure millions and billions of years within the scientific method? "

Bethany, there are many dating methods that use sound scientific principles to measure approximate time periods.

"The fact that the world is ordered and appears through scientific observation to follow a set of rules, suggests a omnipotent creator. These rules exist not only on a grand scale, such as within stars and the universe, but also on a particulate and cellular level.In fact, an intellectually honest scientist could only come to the conclusion that the world must have been created by some kind of intelligent being. To my mind the complexity of biological organisms suggests creation by a higher intelligence than ourselves."
Yes and this describes the PHILOSOPHICAL beliefs of many scientists, including myself. (Well I'm not really a scientist yet but I am studious :P)

"PIP's coming from a totally different place on this evolution stuff - she can't reconcile with the Bible. "
In what way can't that be reconcilable? (sp? lol)

If you have any questions, the Vatican has had some good documents on the subject I can link you to. I have only explained the distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism to you. Science by definition adheres to the former, and has no comment on the latter. Your Church has no problem with that at all. If you do, feel free to take it up with them.


HisMan, since you refuse to bring up any specific parts of Finding Darwin's God that you found inaccurate, I don't believe you have read it, which means you lied to me. I don't really want to go into it with you until you do.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 11:25 PM


Sarah Palin is being viciously attacked by the Liberal MSM

http://newsbusters.org/

please keep her in your prayers...

Posted by: Jasper at September 2, 2008 11:28 PM


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 11:44 PM


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101394/

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 11:46 PM


http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/news/worldnews/evolution___god_do_mix__pope_worldnews_bill_sanderson.htm

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 11:51 PM


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 11:52 PM


" According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 11:56 PM


Sally: "Does anorexia ring a bell?"

Who is saying you should never have sex?

I miss SoMG already...

Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2008 10:53 PM
........................................

You really don't have a handle on any of your business.

Posted by: Sally at September 2, 2008 11:57 PM


from that same document:

"In Catholic tradition, the doctrine of the origin of human beings articulates the revealed truth of this fundamentally relational or personalist understanding of God and of human nature. The exclusion of pantheism and emanationism in the doctrine of creation can be interpreted at root as a way of protecting this revealed truth. The doctrine of the immediate or special creation of each human soul not only addresses the ontological discontinuity between matter and spirit, but also establishes the basis for a divine intimacy which embraces every single human person from the first moment of his or her existence."

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:00 AM


PIP,

I was hoping you would be defending a fellow feminist for life (running for VP) instead of attacking her views on creationism.....strange..

Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2008 12:01 AM


MOre:

"With respect to the creatio ex nihilo, theologians can note that the Big Bang theory does not contradict this doctrine insofar as it can be said that the supposition of an absolute beginning is not scientifically inadmissible. Since the Big Bang theory does not in fact exclude the possibility of an antecedent stage of matter, it can be noted that the theory appears to provide merely indirect support for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo which as such can only be known by faith.

68. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe."

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:02 AM


Jasper,

I defended her at the verrrrrrry beginning. See? Go up top.

My beliefs don't just change however depending on the candidates. I'm not going to be accepting creationism because she is pro-life. That would be absurd.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:04 AM


I find that interesting considering that Stephen Hawking, the man often crediting with popularizing the "big bang theory" has actually refuted that theory. Its been a while since I read his book...A Brief History of the Universe...or whatever it was called, but he comes to the conclusion that the Big Bang theory actually doesnt hold up when considering some of the newer theories...I believe "string theory" was involved. Unfortunately my Physics chops are really weak, and although I understood what he was explaining, it just didnt stick that well. However, it is of course fascinating to me that these theories change constantly. Too bad the Vatican is so sure!

Sally,

Sally: "You really don't have a handle on any of your business. "

What does this mean? I dont have a handle on my business? What business? Its almost as bad as talking to Snerd when he goes crazy.

Posted by: Oliver at September 3, 2008 12:05 AM


Sally: "Does anorexia ring a bell?"

Who is saying you should never have sex?

I miss SoMG already...
Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2008 10:53 PM
*************************************

Um, yeah, Sally, pretty sure that anorexia would also be considered an abuse, a skewed focus on the wrong thing. Nobody dies from complete lack of sex as they do complete lack of proper nutrition.

Oliver is right, no one here is saying "OMG, you should never EVER have sex!!" I'm quite certain, in fact, that my children are here because of sex. *gasp!* Shocking, no? ;)

What we're saying is that if one's focus is constantly on sex, holding it up as this thing that shall fulfill all desires in one's life, and one should have it at all costs without regard to consequence...well, that's a bit skewed, don't you think? If all we focus on in society is how to bring pleasure to ourselves at any cost, we are hedonists at best and murderers at worst.

Sex, in the proper scenario (in my opinion, marriage between a woman and man) is wonderful and should be enjoyed.

Posted by: Kel at September 3, 2008 12:08 AM


Oliver, I think he just redefined the Big Bang theory, at least rejecting parts of the classic theory and placed it in a new physical context.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:19 AM


PIP,

I cant find my copy, so I will take your word on it for now. I swear though that he advanced the notion that the Universe may have always "existed." Ill have to find my copy, or buy a new one to find at least where I made the mistake.

Posted by: Oliver at September 3, 2008 12:35 AM


Are you thinking of the no boundary thing? I'm trying to skim documents. I'm curious myself because I've always heard of Hawking simply adding more to the theory rather than nullifying it.

Here's a bit from a lecture:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now. "
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html


I also found this excerpt that seems to go along with it:

"Hawking accepts the idea of a Big Bang, but without the implication that time has beginning."


Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:44 AM


"HisMan, since you refuse to bring up any specific parts of Finding Darwin's God that you found inaccurate, I don't believe you have read it, which means you lied to me. I don't really want to go into it with you until you do.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 2, 2008 11:25 PM"

PIP:

What in the heck are you talking about? What have I missed? Excuse me but I had to go pick up my 12 year old son from football practice at his Christian school where yes, they teach creationism, Bible, science, math, English, Spanish, Latin, etc, etc. In fact, tomorrow he's flying with the entire brainwashed 7th grade to the Marine Institute on Catalina Island, CA for a field trip where he's going to learn first hand about God's creation in all it's diversity, majesty, and splendor. And while he will be taught to think and understand life, he will do it in the context of knowing from Whence and from Whom it came and in doing so give glory to His Creator. And he won't have a problem understanding that God just created it, not by evolution but by speaking it into existence, as unprovable as that is.

And yes, I have to sacrifice a small fortune on tuition because people like you vote for Liberals who think teaching God and science is somehow an act of "dumbing down". You couldn't be more wrong or arrogant.

I did read Finding Darwin's God, as tortuous as it was. The author has no theological backround whatsoever and brings his lame view or should I say "opinion" of who God is into the book and tries to justify evolution with it. He is a guesser at best.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

That definition of faith fits both the theory of evolution and creationism. The fossil record, the foundation of evolution theory, can only be observed after the fact and not at the fact. Creationism can only be observed after the fact and not at the fact. God's Word testifies to the literal account of creation, evolution does not. God is not a God of confusion. Two choices are always given in His Word; faith or unbelief, good or bad, light or darkness, Himself or satam, passion or lukewarmness, life or death. God is not a God of the wishy washy or the double minded. You are either for Him or against Him. Creation wins the argument.

Let me ask you this PIP. If evolution is true, what exactly did the earth look like on the day of the big bang? What it just a mass of non-viable, insentient molecules? And if the six day version of Creation is true what did the earth look like? Did trees have rings. Did the earth contain fossils? What animals were in it? How old would materials be measured at using carbon dating, etc.?

How do you pretend to know what was in God's mind when He created the earth unless He told you? Do you think the Bible is just someone's opinion like your bible "Finding Darwin's God" is? Do you not know that the Word of God is God's revelation of Himself to mankind? "Finding Darwin's God" is just one man's opinion. The Bible is God's eternal word.

The problem is PIP, evolution and the Bible are totally incompatible. The Bible is not just a compendium of nice little anecdotes. It's the Sword of the Spirit, the Book on which the entirety of mankind will be judged, either for their acceptance of or rejection of its claims, the most imporntant of which is the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

If creation can be interpreted as an opinion or theory, then so can the Lordship of Jesus Christ. SoMG is a case in point. If Jesus Christ is just an opinion and not the resurrected Son of God, we are all in trouble. And go ahead, let your scientist buddies pick apart the resurrection and say things like, "it's a myth", "it's a story", "it's not possible".

If you can't believe in a simple childlike way that God created the Universe in six days, how in the world can you really believe in Jesus Christ? Not the christ of your own making but the Christ of the Bible who raised the dead, healed the sick, fed the hungry, clothed the naked, forgave the sinner, died on the corss, was raised on the third day and ascended into Heaven? I know the answer to that one, you can't, for where is the proof that you require as foundational to your belief system?

And if you're going to use the Catholic Church as your proof text for evolution then be consistent and don't vote for Obama, because yes, the RCC also teaches that you can't take communion if you do so. Well, for a Catholic, not being able to take communion "worthily" is a death sentence. Oh, I'm sorry, you're a cafeteria Catholic. Well, I guess that's a little better than the fast food served up by Dawkins and the likes of him and the pan spermia crowd.

Here's the argument PIP in a nutshell. You think creationism and ID is foolishness, that's clear by your verbose posts filled with all sorts of flowery language. Hence you want to censor it's teaching in public schools. In it's place you want to teach an unproven theory. A theory which, if believed leads to atheism at worst or, cafeteria Christianity at best. Evolution is like paint thinner. It takes something with substance and waters it down, dilutes it and makes it of no effect.

Because you are somewhat at tension in totally dissing God, you try to find people and teachings that fit into who you think God is....yes, God in a box, a god who can be figured out, explained and understood while at the same time rejecting the simplicity of His Word. Well, the Bible says God can't be figured out for He is too wonderful and beyond what we can think or imagine.

I was where you are for a long time PIP. The narrow road is just that, a narrow road. There are all kinds of distractions and offers of wisdom along the way begging for our attention, hoping we'll take the bait, yes, the bait of satan and that usually offered by people who have succumbed to the things of this world; position, respect, money, power, status, yep, the "Finding Darwin's God" author. We are tempted to look and taste and in doing so are easily decieved. It's an ancient trick and many are seduced by it usually because of pride.

I have every reason to believe that the world was created in six days. I have every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The same claims are made from the same Book.

Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.

And don't ever call me a liar again.

Posted by: HisMan at September 3, 2008 12:55 AM


Maybe...I read the book two years ago and although I love Physics...I barely know my kinematic equations. (I am actually in the process of teaching my Physics for the MCAT so that I can in turn teach it...)

It may be the idea that he rejects the notion that the universe is going to end by contracting and then result in another Big Bang...I may be off though.

Posted by: Oliver at September 3, 2008 12:58 AM


PIP:

www.Bible.com

Read it!

Posted by: HisMan at September 3, 2008 12:59 AM


You are so right, Jill, liberals always want women to deal with unplanned pregnancies by "getting rid of it." They cannot comprehend why a woman would ever wish to keep her own child, just because that child was conceived through rape, for example.

They are not "pro-choice" at all. Whereas pro-life people actually do a lot for unsupported, pregnant women (yes, more needs to be done), "pro-choicers" are really just pro-abortion, since they will do nothing to help a pregnant woman keep her baby. Despicable. Even from a "choice" angle, it's absolutely despicable.

Thank heavens the little Palin bub will be so loved by its mum and dad and also its grandparents, aunts and uncles! That's the way to be pro-life. Good for the Palin family!

Posted by: Louise at September 3, 2008 1:02 AM


Oh and incidentally, I have a daughter aged 11 who is not even at puberty yet, but she knows not only that we want her to marry before she has babies, but also that if she ever made a mistake, by not waiting, we would support her 100% to have her baby and that "getting rid of it" is killing the baby. She - being still an innocent child - knows how evil that choice would be, so I am pretty confident that since she knows we love and support her, she will never have to face such a situation alone and will never have an abortion.

Posted by: Louise at September 3, 2008 1:10 AM


Such long and so many posts. My head hurts. Good Night all.

Posted by: Andy at September 3, 2008 1:30 AM


From www.LenMunsil.com

"Sarah Palin is the US’s answer to Margaret Thatcher!

Anyone who thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments … well, they haven’t met our Sarah . She is not “just a woman”, she is not “just a way to get votes” and if anyone expects her to smile, simper and be sweet – they don’t know Sarah. She is *more than* qualified for the job and the best possible choice McCain could have made.

As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK, where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor … I can speak with confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isn’t an issue here as far as I’m concerned) as anyone could ask for at the head of government.

Sarah is no naïve “small town mayor” – she just *started out* there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this “small town” through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her term having grown to the 4th largest CITY in Alaska – a lot of growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.

She has EXECUTIVE experience *running a government* (something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast, even John McCain , as Governor of Alaska and got there by defeating the incumbent Republican Governor, who was definitely part of the “old school” and who seemed very much in the pocket of the big oil companies.)We in Alaska wanted change – and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95% and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80 percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.

Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting spending in spite of the increased income the state is currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has insisted on putting a huge amount of the "windfall" into savings for the future rather than spending, spending, spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers to as "honest, ethical and transparent governing" - no more closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to their chagrin.

She understands the "real people" and the economic issues we all face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she was one of "us" not long ago. Rather than passing useless "laws" or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently) temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough for now . She isn’t doing these things to be popular – she is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially and she is in a position to help.

She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself - and she won by a landslide. The "powers that be" at that time totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way. Let’s hope Obama does the same. Sarah has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do when elected and is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her - she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.

Sarah "belongs" to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR State ... we understand she is needed for a bigger purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill her shoes here and continue the job.

As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die or step down or whatever ... here in AK we've only been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.

Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President ... and my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW here – will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of A . She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong wind.

Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this ... Jerry and I have for many years felt the best "vote" was to vote for the lesser of two "evils" and hope they didn't do too much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' "SARAH PALIN FOR GOVERNOR!" sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the opportunity.

Feel free to pass this on to anyone who may be interested

Deb Frost, in Alaska


snowgoose@mtaonline.net"

Posted by: HisMan at September 3, 2008 2:09 AM


PIP @ 5:17 PM

1. Your original assertions are about origins of life - evolution vs creationism. At least acknowledge your own statements when it comes to your argument.

2. I don't find Dawkins arguments credible because when asked specifically on the origin of life on earth he punted - he's essentially a Raelian.

3. Anyone, such as Dawkins, who claims omniscience about the truth of God basically breaks the law of non-contradiction. As an atheist, Dawkins makes statements about a universal he can't possibly prove or disprove. The most intellectually honest thing he could say is he doesn't know.

As for your statement - evolution being pushed as ontological thought - you're dealing with metaphysics, so how is that not philosophical? It appears you're making my case for me. Semantic substitutions do not make an argument more or less valid.

Ideas have consequences, and rejection of God has terrible consequences. As for your ignorance of these matters - I suggest studying Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others who've rejected God or who have elevated themselves to positions of absolute control over populations through the acquisition of power.

When you say the idea of evolutionary origins of life does not lead to genocide and mass-murder but instead leads to social justice and environmental respect, the evidence is astoundingly against you in the form of Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea and their historical cruelties and complete disrespect for all things environmental.

You live in and trade on a Judeo-Christian worldview, but dream it's not. That's sad.

What has happened in the West is the dearth of imagination. In the rush to advance society on the foundations of all that is scientifically factual and true, one tends to forget that truth requires a certain degree of faith/trust. Every worldview ultimately comes down to that miniscule faith/trust. No one can adequately explain it, but no one can live without it.

The only things that truly matter to human beings are love and relationships. Love is anything but scientific, and true love is rare. I'll skip the remainder of the argument and simply pray that you find a love that surpasses all human understanding.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 3, 2008 7:01 AM


prettyinpink wrote:
How will one determine that? Can an intelligent designer be measured? Can it be observed? Can we experiment over and over again and reliably observe God designing things?

I will refer you to the comment that I left last night at 6:37pm. That comment addressed your objections to ID head-on. In the 362 other comments on this thread, I'm sure that you missed it.

Rather than restate my entire comment, I'll summarize:
* ID is concerned with analyzing what we can see to make conclusions about what we cannot see.
* In that sense, ID is exactly like the science of anthropology.
* Both sciences see order in the universe, and then attempt to draw conclusions about how that order was created.
* Where anthropologists study man-made artifacts, ID scientists study "natural" artifacts such as living creatures.
* ID is not philosophy, in that ID does not attempt to address the Big Questions, such as morality, truth, beauty, and so on.
* ID is not theology. In fact, ID is perfectly compatible with atheism. For example, you could believe that superintelligent aliens created the Earth and life as we know it.
* ID is solely concerned with science from the point of view that intelligence is a real force and that mere random chance could not have created all that we know.

Here's another way to explain it....

Darwinism supposes that everything we know is a matter of random chance.
ID supposes that everything we know is a result of intelligent design.

That is the only difference between Darwinism and ID. The mechanisms of biology, physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, etcetera all remain the same. ID scientists don't reject science, and indeed practice the same scientific disciplines as their Darwinist brethren. The sole difference between them is that the ID scientists believe that the guiding force behind the observations and facts of science is an intelligent designer. Darwinists believe that it's all random chance.

Therefore, ID actually opens more of the universe to scientific inquiry than Darwinism. If an orderly universe comes from an intelligent designer, than we can study the universe to learn more about the designer. As we learn more about the designer, that learning will allow us to gain a greater understanding of our universe. It's a feedback loop.

However, if the Darwinists are right, and if everything is a matter of random chance, then our options are much more limited. We can't learn more about the randomness by studying the universe because it's random! Randomness will not help us to learn more about the universe. Darwinism locks up the secrets of the universe in a black box, not intelligent design.

Your objections to ID are all based on falsehoods. It is your right to believe whatever you want, but I would encourage you to seek out the truth about ID, instead of remaining content with the lies that the Darwinists have spread.

Posted by: Naaman at September 3, 2008 7:04 AM


Dan at September 2, 2008 8:46 PM

THAT is why I love you!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 7:04 AM


Oliver & PiP,

Re: Hawking's book. If I recall correctly (I have not read it but heard this said), Hawking postulates a muti-universe theory in place of the Big Bang model. There actually is no evidence for this, and he postulates it SPECIFICALLY so he can avoid the Big Bang model because the Big Bang model implies that the universe began to exist, which of course implies a creator. The Big Bang model is THE accepted model as to the origins of the cosmos. Every other proposed model fails. Note that it is consistent with Genesis; God spoke everything into being.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 7:10 AM


Hisman, your post at 12:55 AM was beautifully written, and I agree with every word.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 7:24 AM


"How does one measure millions and billions of years within the scientific method? "

Bethany, there are many dating methods that use sound scientific principles to measure approximate time periods.

Actually dating methods are quite disputable since we must make assumptions about how radioactive elements decay for example. Paleontological dating methods also have their problems as well.

I agree with HisMan that evolution is just a theory and has never been proven. What we do know is that life adapts to conditions in the environment etc.

I do not believe that the Bible can tell us anything about how the world was created. It is not a scientific treatise, rather it is God's word to us about Himself and His relationship with us. What we do know from the Bible is that God created the world, but we do not know exactly how he did this.

I also believe that the way science and research is conducted in the post-modern era is often without scientific rigor and integrity. I think research is highly politicized, with researchers bent upon proving something correct (due to ideological biases) and not actually reporting on the results of their research. Abortion and stem cell research are two such examples, but there are many others.

Posted by: Patricia at September 3, 2008 7:26 AM


I think this is part of what Hawking's describes in his book

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

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 7:28 AM


Naaman, thank you for your explanation of what ID really is, and clarifying what it is not. I just can't understand why this can't get through to people who believe in Evolution. The ONLY difference is the presupposition. That's it. We share the same evidence...we just have different presuppositions. I tried explaining this to PIP a long time ago, and she refuses to understand it...I don't know why.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 7:34 AM


Bethany, there are many dating methods that use sound scientific principles to measure approximate time periods.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that they are accurate, PIP.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 7:37 AM


It seems to me that you are arguing two different things.

It's like looking at a house.

PIP is arguing about the architecture. She can point to wood beam, hardwood floors, ceramic tile, pella windows...all things that can be "proven" to exist, and described in concrete, scientific terms.

But that doesn't tell us anything about who built the house. We can infer certain things, like the plumbing is awesome, or the electricity was top notch, but we can't necessarily know who the builder was. Or if he was married, or liked spaghetti.

We can however, deduce that there is a 99.9% chance that there WAS a builder...

So to me, you can both be right.

There is a house and it can be "measured" and there most likely was a builder, and he can only be known by examining the house.

Now if you found his diary, you could learn more about him. This is sort of what the bible is. The creators diary. You can discount the diary as a fraud if you like, but it still leaves the question "Who built the house?", and it does nothing to prove that the house just "appeared".

Posted by: mk at September 3, 2008 7:37 AM


About Carbon-14 dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 7:38 AM


Bobby,

That is what I thought. However I disagree as to why he asserted that. Hawkings left it open for God to have created the universe. To me he put it brilliantly. "The universe has started this way, or at the very least, God has created the universe to look like it has started this way."


In other words, he has left it open for God to have created the universe however he wanted! I thought that was very wise of him.

Posted by: Oliver at September 3, 2008 7:45 AM


Marykay, I think you may have a misunderstanding of the teachings of Intelligent Design if you believe that the only thing that we teach is that there is a creator.

Every other area of science are also taught, not just the fact that God created the world. We look at the world and all it's phenomena through an entirely different lens than evolutionists. We are still looking AT THE FACTS.

The presupposition of ours is that God created the world, and we look at evidence, and everything that we determine about the evidence is in the light of God's design. My children's science books are filled from cover to cover with information from both a Scientific and Christian point of view.

The presupposition of evolutionists is that everything evolved and adapted and came to being on it's own, and that God doesn't even belong in the process.

PIP may believe in God, but what the stuff she is being taught in school does not have anything to do with God and is actually contrary to God- and she doesn't seem to realize that yet.

Presupposing that the earth came to being on it's own, leads the conclusions about other evidence to be completely different then the conclusions derived from those who accept Intelligent design.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 7:47 AM


By the way, I wasn't shouting above...the caps were being used for emphasis. :)

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 7:50 AM


Back on the original topic of Sarah Palin....

Conservative blogger LaShawn Barber has her own concerns about Palin:
I think it was a stunt, badly played. Despite what the McCain camp claims, I don't think Sarah Palin was properly vetted or her selection well thought out.

If McCain wanted to "reach out" to women and evangelical Christians, he should have picked a more qualified and well-known and less quirky and troublesome person than Sarah Palin.

I'm sure Palin's a nice lady and all, but....
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2008/09/02/sarah-palin-why/

I normally cherish LaShawn's viewpoint, but I think she's dead wrong on Palin. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how the choice plays out between now and Election Day.

On the other hand, I love this post:
Looking back on it, it was probably inevitable that an army of young, intolerant urban white male secularists with little experience with women (i.e., Kossacks) would pounce on a 40-something, openly Christian, rural working mother of five like a pack of hungry dogs on raw meat.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/193893.php

Heh. I think there could be some truth here, and the problem is bigger than just dKos. I was watching MSNBC's coverage of the RNC last night. It was hysterically funny! Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Andrea Mitchell were so obviously consumed with visceral hatred for Sarah Palin. Honestly, if you ignored the actual words and just paid attention to the emotions on display, you would have thought that the GOP had just nominated The Wicked Witch of the West. In particular, Andrea Mitchell seemed to have become seriously unhinged. She could barely get out a coherent sentence, and she spent most of her screen time spluttering and stammering like Porky Pig.

Keep up the hatred, moonbats. Don't listen to your more-reasonable bretheren! Keep slamming on Palin for her looks, her family, her lack of experience (even though Obama has less) ... Keep going! America really needs to see your anger!

PS: The pathetically-faked bikini shot is a nice touch. Everyone knows that looking good in a bikini is an instant disqualification from public service!

Posted by: Naaman at September 3, 2008 7:55 AM


Naaman,

Believe me Naaman, these gals criticizing her looks only wish they looked that good, especially in a bikini.

By the way, has anyone brought up Biden's hairplugs?

Posted by: Mary at September 3, 2008 8:06 AM


If you really want to be awed by the world check this out...courtesy of John McDonell.


http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2006/08/21/all-in-perspective/

Posted by: mk at September 3, 2008 8:08 AM


"On a different topic, at 3:00 PM in Geneva, IL, Judge Brawka will be handing down a decision on the SLAPP motion Planned Parenthood has filed in the libel case brought against them by Eric and Joe Scheidler. Please offer your prayers on behalf of these courageous pro life warriors.
Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 2:40 PM"

Guess God likes free speech! Kudos to Judge Brawka for doing her job.

Posted by: phylosopher at September 3, 2008 8:23 AM


Naaman,

I figured the "bikini" shot that LTL or Sally or whoever brought up was going to come to surface as fake, as if it even mattered.

I find this hilarious. If we put the same level of scrutiny to Obama, we would find plenty of "pork" funds, lack of experience, suspicious campaign donations etc etc. What makes Palin different is that she has very few of those things. Obama and Biden are entrenched in it.

Posted by: Oliver at September 3, 2008 8:24 AM


"Marykay, I think you may have a misunderstanding of the teachings of Intelligent Design if you believe that the only thing that we teach is that there is a creator."
"That is the only difference between Darwinism and ID. The mechanisms of biology, physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, etcetera all remain the same. ID scientists don't reject science, and indeed practice the same scientific disciplines as their Darwinist brethren. The sole difference between them is that the ID scientists believe that the guiding force behind the observations and facts of science is an intelligent designer. Darwinists believe that it's all random chance."

Your statements really sort of contradict each other.

I really don't feel like addressing every argument here...so I'll address main points.

"What in the heck are you talking about?"
You didn't read it, or you would oblige me to pick out specific parts of the book you disagree with.

" In that sense, ID is exactly like the science of anthropology."
Why not try to get it in the anthropology classrooms?
But seriously. It's not a science, if you can't describe the creator you think it is. If you can't test the creator, it's not a science, it's faith in something.

You have a misunderstanding about evolution, which is not DRIVEN by random chance. Not at all.

"At least acknowledge your own statements when it comes to your argument."
Origins of most life- I'm simply pointing out that evolution doesn't explain the genesis of the first life form. So let's not get that confused.

"I don't find Dawkins arguments credible"
As I said you can disagree with the ontological leaps he makes, but it doesn't mean his counterarguments to some creationism points aren't valid.


"As for your statement - evolution being pushed as ontological thought - you're dealing with metaphysics, so how is that not philosophical? It appears you're making my case for me."
No I'm not- I"m saying you have a problem with ontological naturalism-which science doesn't touch. Science deals with methodological naturalism. You are confusing the two.

The whole "leads to genocide" thing is complete nonsense, and most people find it repulsive. Here's a good refutation to save space:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins

Bobby thanks---I really am not an expert in physics, appreciate you for helping us.

Bethany, it is equally frustrating for me b/c i agree with mk's analogy: the limits of science is to describe the house and how it was built. Then philosophy takes over- and says there must be a builder. I"m not saying they are not compatible I'm simply saying there is a limit to science. It's equally frustrating when I tell you this over and over- that ID isn't not compatible with science, it's just NOT science.

Also, most dating for millions of years does not use carbon dating first of all. Secondly, the whole "assumptions" thing is unfounded and the principles that drive nuclear technology- unless you want to say that's a farce too.


"PIP may believe in God, but what the stuff she is being taught in school does not have anything to do with God and is actually contrary to God- and she doesn't seem to realize that yet."

NO, I am being taught God in the God classroom and science in the science classroom. I have already linked to religious documents saying the very same thing. I don't know why you aren't understanding my argument.

"Presupposing that the earth came to being on it's own"
No. We just describe the natural processes that take place. Science can't be involved in ontological debates, that is again a philosophy.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 8:30 AM


"Bobby thanks---I really am not an expert in physics, appreciate you for helping us."

Of course, neither am I. What I wrote is from what I remember hearing an expert in Big Bang cosmology say.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 8:51 AM


"Marykay, I think you may have a misunderstanding of the teachings of Intelligent Design if you believe that the only thing that we teach is that there is a creator."
"That is the only difference between Darwinism and ID. The mechanisms of biology, physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, etcetera all remain the same. ID scientists don't reject science, and indeed practice the same scientific disciplines as their Darwinist brethren. The sole difference between them is that the ID scientists believe that the guiding force behind the observations and facts of science is an intelligent designer. Darwinists believe that it's all random chance."

Your statements really sort of contradict each other.

No, they don't. That we presuppose a God is not the ONLY thing we teach.

It is, however, the ONLY thing that separates evolution and intelligent design.

Not contradictory at all.

Bethany, it is equally frustrating for me b/c i agree with mk's analogy: the limits of science is to describe the house and how it was built. Then philosophy takes over- and says there must be a builder. I"m not saying they are not compatible I'm simply saying there is a limit to science. It's equally frustrating when I tell you this over and over- that ID isn't not compatible with science, it's just NOT science.

And it's frustrating for me because I hear you and understand what you're saying, but wholeheartedly disagree.

Also, most dating for millions of years does not use carbon dating first of all.

Okay, PIP, what is the process that is used for detecting billions of years, with perfect accuracy?

Since we cannot go back with a time machine, to billions of years ago, how can you prove to me that these methods are accurate?

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 8:57 AM


"Presupposing that the earth came to being on it's own"
No. We just describe the natural processes that take place. Science can't be involved in ontological debates, that is again a philosophy.

How is the Big Bang theory not philosophical as well, since you can't prove that this is how the world came to be? You can come up with explanations for why it "might" have been the way the world came to be, or why you think it almost definitely could have been the way it came to be...but in the end, it is still just a theory for how the world began.

How is this any different than looking at the evidence and saying there must have been an intelligent designer who created it?

Please explain to me the difference.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:02 AM


"On a different topic, at 3:00 PM in Geneva, IL, Judge Brawka will be handing down a decision on the SLAPP motion Planned Parenthood has filed in the libel case brought against them by Eric and Joe Scheidler. Please offer your prayers on behalf of these courageous pro life warriors."
Posted by: DeeL at September 2, 2008 2:40 PM"

Guess God likes free speech! Kudos to Judge Brawka for doing her job.

Posted by: phylosopher at September 3, 2008 8:23 AM

WHAT was the VERDICT????

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2008 9:04 AM


"Okay, PIP, what is the process that is used for detecting billions of years, with perfect accuracy?"

Who said we claimed perfect accuracy? We don't.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
here is a good treatment from a Christian perspective.


"How is the Big Bang theory not philosophical as well"
You can test the big bang, you can do astronomical measurements and physics. I am not a physicist as I said so I can't give you a lot of details- but the research is there if you want it. Let me know if you want a link.

You can have a philosophical take on the Big Bang, naturalistic or supernatural, but that is not the scientific part. It's using evidence for the 'how' (as opposed to the 'why').

"That we presuppose a God is not the ONLY thing we teach."
Okay- what else is there.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 9:13 AM


You can test the big bang, you can do astronomical measurements and physics. I am not a physicist as I said so I can't give you a lot of details- but the research is there if you want it. Let me know if you want a link.

No, you can test something you call the big bang.

You are still making the assumption that there ever was a "big bang" which began the world in the first place, right?

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:17 AM


how can you prove to me that these methods are accurate?

You don't 'prove' it. Science very rarely proves anything. You collect data that you then use as evidence to support your assumptions. If all the evidence supports your hypothesis, and no evidence refutes it, you can proceed in assuming that you've found a fact... but all it takes is one bit of contradictory evidence in the future to force you to change your hypothesis. Carbon (and some other forms of) dating can't be proved, but since it's so far been shown to be consistent with our understanding of the world, it is fair to assume that the things it tells us are also consistent with our understanding of the world.

In general, it's kind of meaningless to use the word 'prove' in evolution discussions. The kind of proof you want (human-generated documentation from before humans existed) isn't possible, but that doesn't mean we can't use evidence and deduction to rule in and out various possibilities.

Posted by: Wendy at September 3, 2008 9:18 AM


"That we presuppose a God is not the ONLY thing we teach."
Okay- what else is there.

Good grief, have you listened to anything I have said? EVERY other aspect of science is taught through Intelligent Design. We just look at the entire world, the evidence, everything, through a different LENS.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:18 AM


Wendy, thank you. Evolution is accepted by faith. Faith that your assumptions are correct, faith that the evidence supports your presuppositions.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:21 AM


"Good grief, have you listened to anything I have said? EVERY other aspect of science is taught through Intelligent Design. We just look at the entire world, the evidence, everything, through a different LENS. "
Then you totally agree with mk's analogy.

"You are still making the assumption that there ever was a "big bang" which began the world in the first place, right? "
There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion. If you look at evidence and propose something called the big bang, and it is consistent with the evidence, then it's not an assumption. An assumption is when you go in with an idea and try to fit everything around it. Now, if something directly contradicted the big bang, then we must reject the big bang model we have and get a new one. However, you can't do that with ID. Therefore it's not science!

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 9:25 AM


There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion. If you look at evidence and propose something called the big bang, and it is consistent with the evidence, then it's not an assumption. An assumption is when you go in with an idea and try to fit everything around it. Now, if something directly contradicted the big bang, then we must reject the big bang model we have and get a new one. However, you can't do that with ID. Therefore it's not science!

lol what can't you falsify with ID? That God was the creator? I thought that you could also believe in Evolution and believe in God.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:27 AM


"Faith" is being used differently here.

Faith in the supernatural means you have faith in something without hard evidence. (That's because it's not 'natural,' something that can be studied using science).
Unless you mean 'faith' in the sense that we have 'faith' that a certain process will lead us to the reason something is the way it is because it has worked time and time again.

We don't just hypothesize willy nilly- we look at evidence, come up with a hypothesis, and test it. Remember, YOU CAN'T TEST GOD.


I'm gong to class- probably can reply around lunchtime.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 9:30 AM


"I thought that you could also believe in Evolution and believe in God."

YES, you can't falsify God so it's NOT SCIENCE, it is philosophy. The philosophy can work with the scientific evidence within the context of evolution (etc) but you can't teach it AS SCIENCE. This is why I don't believe you are understanding my argument.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 9:32 AM


"In the DVD Case For A Creator, in the Q&A section, Michael Behe was asked, How would you respond to the claim that intelligent design theory is not falsifiable?

Behe responded:

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-falsification/

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:32 AM


"Faith" is being used differently here.
Faith in the supernatural means you have faith in something without hard evidence. (That's because it's not 'natural,' something that can be studied using science).
Unless you mean 'faith' in the sense that we have 'faith' that a certain process will lead us to the reason something is the way it is because it has worked time and time again.
We don't just hypothesize willy nilly- we look at evidence, come up with a hypothesis, and test it. Remember, YOU CAN'T TEST GOD.

I mean faith in the sense that you believe something that you can't prove, is true.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:34 AM


Remember, YOU CAN'T TEST GOD

You can, however, test God's handiwork, and give Him the glory for it.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:35 AM


We don't just hypothesize willy nilly- we look at evidence, come up with a hypothesis, and test it. Remember, YOU CAN'T TEST GOD.

Neither do we hypothesize willy nilly. We look at the evidence, come up with hypothesis (in the light of "there is a designer"), and test it. You CAN test God's handiwork, as I said above.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:37 AM


You can, however, test God's handiwork, and give Him the glory for it.

Do you think that a public-school science class is the appropriate place to give Him the glory for it?

Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2008 9:39 AM


YES, you can't falsify God so it's NOT SCIENCE, it is philosophy. The philosophy can work with the scientific evidence within the context of evolution (etc) but you can't teach it AS SCIENCE. This is why I don't believe you are understanding my argument.

Evolution can't be falsified

See, I understand your point. I just disagree.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:40 AM


Do you think that a public-school science class is the appropriate place to give Him the glory for it?

Of course. Doesn't that make sense, seeing as I support Intelligent Design being taught in Science?

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:41 AM


So you think that kids learning just the scientific facts is against your religion. But you don't see how kids being instructed to praise God for putting those facts there is against other people's religions?

Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2008 9:48 AM


PIP, I hope you will read the article I linked to.. here is one part I hope you will not miss:

"This is not to say there is no evidence that can be understood in the light of naturalism and the evolution hypothesis, but it is to say that

* if evolution is science (which its main aspects are not), it can only be held tentatively (retaining one's doubt about it) and not as absolute truth

* and if there is so much evidence against the theory, it doesn't need to be held at all

* with the naturalistic religion evolution is a part of, there is no need to contradict or compromise one's own faith with such a thing in light of its failure in the cold light of reason, logic and evidence, all of which can be a part of one's religio-philosophical worldview.

But evolutionists, especially the ardent ones, don't hold to the first point by their very actions to impose it on others and ridicule those who disagree with it.

There are many other websites and scientific articles that show that such claims by creationists are not unsubstantiated concerning the falsification of the theory's predictions, and this article helps to show that. Creation science is more than just an opponent of evolution. It is a way of looking at the world in light of its creation and Creator having nothing to do with naturalism, unless the two clash. It is because creation science is more than just a claim of evolution's falsification that creation scientists can do research into possible ways the flood impacted the world, and study rock formations like Grand Canyon, and the aftermath of disasters, like Mount St. Helens, using science to help them understand more about themselves and the history of the world in light of the Almighty Creator. Before the theory of evolution had an organized beginning, creationism existed in the minds, actions, experiences and investigations of those who accepted the literal word of the books of Moses, especially Genesis 1 and 2. For these reasons and more, creation science is more than evolution's opponent.

So to conclude, the claim that the main aspects of the evolution theory are unfalsifiable are true and there is a lot of evidence for such a view. "

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:50 AM


So you think that kids learning just the scientific facts is against your religion. But you don't see how kids being instructed to praise God for putting those facts there is against other people's religions?

Alexandra, Intelligent design isn't about a religion. As Naaman put it:

* ID is not theology. In fact, ID is perfectly compatible with atheism. For example, you could believe that superintelligent aliens created the Earth and life as we know it.

Now, for ME, it is glorifying God, as I know Him. But it doesn't have to be, because Intelligent Design is not about a specific God. It just says that there obviously is complex design in this world that couldn't have come about on it's own.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:53 AM


But you don't see how kids being instructed to praise God for putting those facts there is against other people's religions?

By Glorify God, I meant to acknowledge that He had a hand in it. Not that they are going to be instructed to be singing Hallelujahs to God.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:54 AM


And I never once said they HAD to do any of that anyway. I want it to be accepted as an alternative theory alongside evolution!

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:55 AM


YES, you can't falsify God so it's NOT SCIENCE, it is philosophy. The philosophy can work with the scientific evidence within the context of evolution (etc) but you can't teach it AS SCIENCE. This is why I don't believe you are understanding my argument.

This is what I was talking about.

Geology is a science. Carbon dating is a science.
You can show with science why you might come to the conclusion that a "big bang" happened.

BUT...

I think the big bang is what is not science.

It's speculation at this point.
It probably falls into philosophy as well.

You look at the architecture of the house and speculate on how it got there.

You have come to the conclusion that there was an explosion.

Some have come to the conclusion that there was a creator.

No one disputes the age/properties of the known universe. Only it's beginnings.

That said, I don't think the Big Bang theory discounts a creator. It goes "so far" back and no further, but the question still remains, how did the things that banged get there? (Was that even English?)

Posted by: mk at September 3, 2008 9:58 AM


That's the double standard that makes ID so controversial. It's the idea that only Christians deserve not to be offended. It's okay if atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, are offended by being taught theology that they don't believe in the science classroom, but heaven forbid a Christian kid is taught something without being explained that their God is the reason behind it. Doesn't years of church-going and being raised by Christian parents take into account that a kid could make such an inference on their own after being presented strictly with evidence without religious connotation?

Posted by: JKeller at September 3, 2008 9:59 AM


So you think that kids learning just the scientific facts is against your religion

I just read the way you phrased that again, and I have absolutely nothing against kids learning scientific facts. And I never said I did. I don't consider evolution a "scientific fact".

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 9:59 AM


Marykay, EXACTLY!!

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:00 AM


That's the double standard that makes ID so controversial. It's the idea that only Christians deserve not to be offended.

Misrepresentation.

It's okay if atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, are offended by being taught theology that they don't believe in the science classroom,

Again, ID is not theology.

but heaven forbid a Christian kid is taught something without being explained that their God is the reason behind it.

No one is saying to take away evolution, JKeller. We're simply asking that Intelligent Design be treated as an accepted alternative theory.

Doesn't years of church-going and being raised by Christian parents take into account that a kid could make such an inference on their own after being presented strictly with evidence without religious connotation?

Again, not religious, not theology. Don't know what it'll take to get that through to you guys.


Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:02 AM


I just read the way you phrased that again, and I have absolutely nothing against kids learning scientific facts.

I said with kids learning JUST the scientific facts. As in, with no comment on their relation to God, either in favor of that belief or against it.

You said earlier:

The presupposition of ours is that God created the world, and we look at evidence, and everything that we determine about the evidence is in the light of God's design.

So you do not think it's acceptable to just look at the evidence, without giving the glory for it to God, in a public school setting.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2008 10:05 AM


So you do not think it's acceptable to just look at the evidence, without giving the glory for it to God, in a public school setting.

Not if the evidence leads to an intelligent designer. What I mean is, I think it is acceptable, but I think that if evidence leads to intelligent design, it should not be ignored and treated as rubbish.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:06 AM


without giving the glory for it to God,

I think that you are saying this intentionally to mock me.

What I actually said was in response to PIP's assertion that 'you can't test God'. I replied that that may be so, but you can test His handiwork and glorify Him for it.

You are making it appear that I said that we should be making public school students forcibly praise and glorify God. Which is absolutely not what I meant to say at all, and I think you know that.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:12 AM


"That said, I don't think the Big Bang theory discounts a creator."

No, certainly not MK. It points to a creator. Atheists used to be able to say that the universe had always existed, that it was eternal. Now science has confirmed that the universe was not eternal, that it began as an initial singularity along with space, time, and matter. What caused the big bang? The atheist now has to say "nothing. The universe just popped into being, uncased out of nothing." The atheist has to turn their skeptical dial waaaay up in order to say that not everything has a cause.

So far from the big bang disproving a creator, it causes the atheist to hold to an absurd metaphysical view; namely, that being can come from non-being.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 10:13 AM


ID is the brainchild of creationists, the "designer" is supposed to be seen as God. I doubt any ID proponents are hoping kids are coming to the conclusion that our world was created by the alien overlord Xenu or something like that.

What I was trying to say is that, when presented solely with scientific evidence with no theological editorializing, a Christian kid, raised by Christian parents in a Christian church should be able to see, on their own, God's hand in whatever they are being taught. If they can't then it's not a science teacher's job to evangelize them.

Posted by: JKeller at September 3, 2008 10:13 AM


Jkeller, the school is already evangelizing them with a humanist religion masquerading as "science".

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:16 AM


Science is not a religion, though

Posted by: JKeller at September 3, 2008 10:17 AM


I think that you are saying this intentionally to mock me.

I'm not. I merely think that science class is the place to examine (and to test) God's handiwork, and that church, philosophy class, theology class, or any number of non-scientific arenas are the place to glorify Him for it.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2008 10:18 AM


lol what can't you falsify with ID? That God was the creator? I thought that you could also believe in Evolution and believe in God.


YOU can. That is your own personal belief, however, and your own personal beliefs as they relate to science are quite hard to incorporate into a public school cirriculum. Do you see the amount of stuff they HAVE to teach the kids? It's A LOT, so I say, feel free to teach it in private institutions, your home, whatever. In a public school setting where there are people of many different beliefs, stick to JUST science. My last science course was taught by a very smart, Catholic, pro-life man who no doubt believed in God. He still taught us about evolution and the concepts of evolution, doesn't mean that HE doesn't believe in God, just means there's no way for him to prove it in the lab.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 10:19 AM


I'm not. I merely think that science class is the place to examine (and to test) God's handiwork, and that church, philosophy class, theology class, or any number of non-scientific arenas are the place to glorify Him for it.

I already explained to you what I meant by Glorify him and I meant to acknowledge His hand in it. And I was talking about MYSELF, not forcibly making other students do that. And i've already told you that.
Ugh.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:22 AM


"Science is not a religion, though"

Well, let's go with "science SHOULDN'T be a religion." Unfortunately, many people, influenced by the new irrational atheism of Dawkins and hitchens take science as the only type of knowledge that we can know for sure. This is "scientism." Of course, it is a self-refuting philosophy. (exercise: show that scientism is self-refuting)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 10:22 AM


Science is not a religion, though

Well duh, but evolution is part of the secular humanist doctrine. I have no problems with kids learning REAL science. But being brainwashed into secular humanism, being given no alternative, is completely unfair.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:24 AM


YOU can. That is your own personal belief, however, and your own personal beliefs as they relate to science are quite hard to incorporate into a public school cirriculum. Do you see the amount of stuff they HAVE to teach the kids? It's A LOT, so I say, feel free to teach it in private institutions, your home, whatever. In a public school setting where there are people of many different beliefs, stick to JUST science. My last science course was taught by a very smart, Catholic, pro-life man who no doubt believed in God. He still taught us about evolution and the concepts of evolution, doesn't mean that HE doesn't believe in God, just means there's no way for him to prove it in the lab.

Then why not take out evolution, and keep science in School then.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:25 AM


Because evolution is a HUGE principle in science.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 10:26 AM


Phylosopher @ 8:23 Guess God likes free speech! Kudos to Judge Brawka for doing her job.

Phylosopher, before you celebrate, stop to realize that Judge Brawka just made it more difficult for you as a private citizen to exercise your right to freedom of speech. Her ruling allows allows large corporations seeking "favorable government action" to say anything they want against private citizens without fear of legal action. So when a large developer wants to come in and demolish your and your neighbor's houses to build a hotel, you will no longer be able to protect your self. The developer will be permitted to commit any kind of slander or libel against you and your neighbor and you will have no legal recourse to restore your reputation.

I understand that you support Planned Parenthood, but the legal implications of this case go far beyond what is happening in Aurora. Judge Brawka's ruling just trampled over the rights of ordinary citizens (that would be you) in favor of a large, deep pocketed corporation. No matter what your feelings are on abortion, that should make you very wary indeed. Be careful what you wish for.

Janet,
Judge Brawka ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood. Eric is meeting with his attorneys to figure out their next course of action. Obviously this will be appealed, but if this ruling stands, they will be forced to pick up $50,000 in PPs legal fees. It will be a costly battle, but they are committed to see it through. Eric will post a more thorough explanation of what happened in court on the Families Against Planned Parenthood site later today.

Posted by: DeeL at September 3, 2008 10:26 AM


He still taught us about evolution and the concepts of evolution, doesn't mean that HE doesn't believe in God, just means there's no way for him to prove it in the lab.

There's no way to prove evolution in the lab either.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:26 AM


The thing is Dawkins doesn't believe in indoctrinating "his religion" (even though he doesn't see it as a religion) or any religion in children.

Posted by: JKeller at September 3, 2008 10:28 AM


Let's face it, you just want it in schools because you're afraid that kids who learn about evolution won't believe in God anymore. And that's simply false because evolution DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 10:28 AM


Let's face it, you just want it in schools because you're afraid that kids who learn about evolution won't believe in God anymore. And that's simply false because evolution DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD.

No, Intelligent design is just as valid a theory as evolution. If evolution is being taught, then ID should also be taught alongside it, for those who don't want their kids brainwashed by secular humanism.

Of course evolution doesn't disprove God.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:30 AM


If you don't want your kids "brainwashed by secular humanism" then teach them religion yourselves. It's not a public schools job to do that.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 10:33 AM


I gotta run. Will be back later.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:33 AM


I wouldn't call it being given no alternative, Bethany. When we discussed evolution in my anthropology class in college my professor was quick to explain that it was part of the curriculum, that we could find it true or utterly ridiculous if we chose, but all we had to do was know the material in order to regurgitate it for the test, but we could just cast it aside after that if we wanted.

Posted by: JKeller at September 3, 2008 10:36 AM


Sorry, gotta reply to your comment before I go.


If you don't want your kids "brainwashed by secular humanism" then teach them religion yourselves. It's not a public schools job to do that.

Elizabeth, if it's not the public schools job to teach them religion, then they need to remove evolution from the school books. It is secular humanism, and has no place in school, according to your own logic.

Secondly, I AM teaching my children about our God, our religion, AND I am teaching them intelligent design myself, which is not "religion", but Science, and it is located right in our science books where it belongs.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:36 AM


"The thing is Dawkins doesn't believe in indoctrinating "his religion" (even though he doesn't see it as a religion) or any religion in children."

That's another interesting thing about Dawkins; he's a moral absolutist, yet he completely buys into the idea of Darwinian morality (which should be distinguished from the scientific Darwinian theory) where natural selection determines what is right and wrong. The inconsistencies in his ethics are astonishing. I'm legitimately surprised that a man of his intelligence doesn't see that.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 10:40 AM


But it's not indoctrination. It's presenting findings based on empirical evidence, which is not a religion in the first place. You are not required in public schools to believe in evolution, simply learn it as part of the curriculum and pack it away if you want. It's comparable to learning about Greek and Roman mythology in history class. No one expects you to believe that Zeus, Athena, Apollo, etc. are real, but to know that once upon a time people who played a big part in our history held worldviews that included these deities.

Posted by: JKeller at September 3, 2008 10:43 AM


Well, Bethany, the scientific method which is a STAPLE in science is regarded by secular humanists, so I guess we should throw that one out too.

Oh and I found this on wikipedia which I thought was interesting about secular humanism and evolution:

"Most advocates do not regard their belief in evolution as religious — Ideas such as the scientific method and evolution are advocated primarily by people who do not regard these ideas as being part of their religions, lending credibility to the claim that these ideas are not inherently religious."

I also found this one particularaly interesting as well:

"As mentioned previously, "secular humanism" was a term used by Justice Black in 1961 to refer to a non-theistic variety of humanism that its adherents considered to be religious. The phrase was seized upon by religious fundamentalists, with the inclusion of the word "secular" often used to cast humanists as anti-religious"

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 10:46 AM


JKeller,

It's nice to agree with you on something. :)

I really don't get what this whole issue is to be honest. I've learned about evolution and :gasp: I still believe in God and that He is our Creator.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 10:51 AM


"Elizabeth, if it's not the public schools job to teach them religion, then they need to remove evolution from the school books. It is secular humanism, and has no place in school, according to your own logic."

Amen bethany, thanks for sticking up for intelligent design. It's a shame we have to explain this to so called 'christians'.

Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2008 12:20 PM


"You have come to the conclusion that there was an explosion.

Some have come to the conclusion that there was a creator.

No one disputes the age/properties of the known universe. Only it's beginnings.

That said, I don't think the Big Bang theory discounts a creator. It goes "so far" back and no further, but the question still remains, how did the things that banged get there? (Was that even English?)"


Did you know that the Big Bang was originally proposed by a Jesuit priest?

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:34 PM


Bethany:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

In the wikipedia article:

"J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[45][46] Numerous other potential ways to falsify evolution have also been proposed.[25] For example, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[47] The assertion of common descent could also have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. If true, human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees than other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[48] Hence, human evolution has passed a falsifiable test."

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:36 PM


Also, I'm sure you remember that video with Kenneth Miller on Chimp/human DNA and chromosome structure? There was a great way to falsify evolution- but it passed the test.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:37 PM


"yet he completely buys into the idea of Darwinian morality (which should be distinguished from the scientific Darwinian theory) where natural selection determines what is right and wrong."

I wouldn't say that's true--read his letter I posted above. I think he believes in the right to health care-definitely not a darwinian moral position.

"Amen bethany, thanks for sticking up for intelligent design. It's a shame we have to explain this to so called 'christians'."

Jasper, sounds like you are questioning Benedict XVI's christianity.

"There's no way to prove evolution in the lab either."
Adaption and speciation has been observed in and out of the lab on many occasions.

"* if evolution is science (which its main aspects are not), it can only be held tentatively (retaining one's doubt about it) and not as absolute truth

* and if there is so much evidence against the theory, it doesn't need to be held at all

* with the naturalistic religion evolution is a part of, there is no need to contradict or compromise one's own faith with such a thing in light of its failure in the cold light of reason, logic and evidence, all of which can be a part of one's religio-philosophical worldview."

A. It's not, and there are lots of scientists who disagree on different mechanisms of evolution and genetic variability
B.That's true, but there isn't.
C. As I said before there is a big difference between Ontological and Methodological naturalism. You can believe what you want outside of science, just recognize ID is part of a philosophical world view and not science!

" For example, you could believe that superintelligent aliens created the Earth and life as we know it."
I'd like to see how many atheistic scientists actually want this taught in a science classroom.

The fact that you refer to methodological naturalism, a standard of science since before Newton, as "secular humanism" tells me you misunderstand the goals of science completely.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:45 PM


PIP,

Did you know that the Big Bang was originally proposed by a Jesuit priest?

This doesn't surprise me...first because they tend to be quite liberal in their thinking but also because the Catholic Church has been on the front lines of science forever.

But you're fighting with someone that agrees with you...to a point.

I acknowledge that the big bang theory is as viable as a theory can get. I also acknowledge that it in no way contradicts ID.

Bethany believes the bible literally. She believes in the 6 day scenario. Catholics do not, as you have already pointed out.

I keep saying that Bethany can be right, and you can be right, and you haven't cancelled each other out.

The difference is you want the Big Bang theory to be fact, and I can't give you that. Probable? Maybe, okay. But fact? No. It's still just an idea. There is no way to prove it. Even the evidence only shows that it could have been. That it fits. But not that it WAS.

Posted by: mk at September 3, 2008 12:46 PM


"The difference is you want the Big Bang theory to be fact, and I can't give you that. Probable? Maybe, okay. But fact? No. It's still just an idea. There is no way to prove it. Even the evidence only shows that it could have been. That it fits. But not that it WAS."

mk, scientific theories are not facts; they explain facts. So by definition no, I don't think the big bang theory is fact.

Actually, I would love some discovery to completely unsurp (sp?) everything we think and completely change our understanding- I think that would be super-cool. It's just that- and the Catholic Church understands this- until we have evidence to the contrary, we accept where the evidence leads, and there is no problem with that. As it says in the vatican document above, truth can not cancel truth.

The difference between Bethany and I seems to be that she believes in something different in a way (the 6 day so on)-- which is FINE- and I really don't care whether she agrees with me on that- however, I think that science should keep the standards that have been working for centuries, and she doesn't. I also think she is confusing methodological and ontological naturalism, still. Or else she wouldn't view science as we know it a 'threat' from the 'secular humanism' conspiracy.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 12:53 PM


PiP,

"I wouldn't say that's true--read his letter I posted above. I think he believes in the right to health care-definitely not a darwinian moral position."

Right, but that's part of his inconsistency. My point was that, indeed, he does live a life that is OPPOSED to darwinian morals, yet he claims that this is the cause of morals. In God Delusion, he makes it abundantly clear that the morals that we hold to be "true" are a result of being advantageous for our survival (he goes into more detail than that). In other words, there are no moral absolutes; all there is is total indifference. Yet, he will talk about parents who teach religion to their children as being absolutely morally wrong; or discrimination of homosexuals as being absolutely morally wrong. Even in the letter you showed us, he refers to Stein's documentary as a "lie" as if that means anything. If, as he claims, morals are just a product of evolution, then there is no moral difference between lying and telling the truth; it's just a preference. Or there is this quote from the letter

"It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you"

That is an absolute moral judgment. So my point is that he doesn't practice what he preaches; The moral relativism that results from ripping Darwinian evolution out of the context of science into anthropology is not livable, as Dawkins clearly shows.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 1:24 PM


MK,

"This doesn't surprise me...first because they tend to be quite liberal in their thinking but also because the Catholic Church has been on the front lines of science forever."

Don't get me started on the Jesuits. I hung out with a friend who goes to Boston College this weekend and man... those Jesuits...

"The difference is you want the Big Bang theory to be fact, and I can't give you that. Probable? Maybe, okay. But fact? No. It's still just an idea. There is no way to prove it. Even the evidence only shows that it could have been. That it fits. But not that it WAS."

I"m a little confused by this... what do you have against the big bang theory? Wouldn't you agree that it confirms God?

It's a scientific fact in so far as any forensic scientific fact is concerned. If one requires that we actually have to be able to observe first hand a hypothesis, then all forensic science is thrown out the window. You could never "prove" someone raped someone else or that anyone was raped. No one could be charged with murder, etc. This seems to be sort of an extreme form of forensic skepticism. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but in light of all the evidence for it, there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt it. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 1:34 PM


Jasper, 12:20 p.m.

Stuff it, just because I don't want to shove my religion down everybody else's throat doesn't make me any less of a Christian than you.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 1:42 PM


In fact Elizabeth, it makes you more of one.

Posted by: Hal at September 3, 2008 2:21 PM


Thanks, Hal. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 2:27 PM


Bobby,

I don't have anything against the big bang theory. My point was that it's not the same as the theory of gravity, or the flat earth/round earth debate.

As I said, I see no contradiction. Sure, the big bang theory is as good as any.

I was just pointing out that Bethany does not accept it, and that as it stands, she could be just as right.

For me, it in no way threatens what I believe about God.

The whole thing is, you know, above my pay grade.

Posted by: mk at September 3, 2008 2:34 PM


Hehe, mk, I looooove you, and miss you when you are not here!

P.S. The Cell Theory is just a theory too you know. It says that all living things are made up of cells, which we know to be true, but they still call it a "theory." Which should give clues to us that "theory" in science is a tad bit different when used in everyday talk.

P.P.S. I believe gravity is a law.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 2:37 PM


"Stuff it, just because I don't want to shove my religion down everybody else's throat doesn't make me any less of a Christian than you."

Elizabeth,

you seem to be very intolerant of other points of view. Many scientists believe in intelligent design. Bobby Jindel, a catholic governor signed it into law that it could be taught in public schools. Let's open up debate to an unproven theory, not stifle it.

Posted by: Bob at September 3, 2008 2:41 PM


Bob,

I wasn't stifling anything. I was talking to Jasper about his accusing me of not being a real Christian. And he CAN stuff it because how would he know? Because evolution doesn't bother me? That makes ME less of a Christian? Nope..I just am not threatened by evolution because it doesn't disprove anything to me.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 2:44 PM


"I wasn't stifling anything"

Then why are you against ID being taught in Public schools? This is driving many people to homeschool.

Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2008 2:48 PM


Good for them, they can homeschool their kids all they want to. That's their choice.

Because I don't think ID is a SCIENTIFIC theory..that's why. Could I make it any clearer for you? You may not agree with me in that you think it is a scientific theory, but I don't. End of story. That doesn't make me any less Christian than you buddy, it just means I have my own opinions on what is science and what is not.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 2:52 PM


Elizabeth,

Jasper's accusation goes farther than you; in fact he put "christians" in quotation marks; considering the Vatican position on this issue, this is essentially calling his own pope a "so-called christian." Not very Catholic of him.

Bobby,

Point well taken. There are different ethical theories that do not require a deity; however I haven't read the God Delusion nor am I inspired to. Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, but beyond that I could care less what he thinks.

"theory of gravity"
Actually the theory of gravity isn't the fact that gravity exists; that is the fact. The theory is what attempts to explain it- and there is less evidence for that than there is for evolution! It's mostly mathematical in nature, and still requires a lot of conjecture, whereas with evolution, all of the 4 principles can be demonstrated, and we have molecular, paleontological, and observational evidence for evolution all over the place. In fact, evolution is one of the most well-established theories in scientific history.
Don't be fooled. People become huge skeptics concerning evolution- but often their own views don't stand up to that skepticism, and neither would most of history, forensics, paleontology, or anthropology today. It's a conflict of interest really- they postulate that they use all of the same 'science' but then turn around and say that science is faulty by its nature.


And Bobby, whats your beef with the Jesuits? That priest actually was greeted with skepticism because they questioned his intentions. Jesuits have been on the front lines of social justice for many years and continue to do so. I'm quite fond of them.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 2:55 PM


"This is driving many people to homeschool."

So what? I'm not in favor of removing academic standards because their parents don't agree with it. If they disagree so much they want to homeschool that's their right. They can teach them creationism there to their heart's desire and we can all be happy.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 2:56 PM


"That doesn't make me any less Christian than you buddy, it just means I have my own opinions on what is science and what is not."

yes, it does, it means you don't believe in a Creator. You believe that we evolved out of of randomness, nothing...

Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2008 2:58 PM


Jasper,

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ?

I have stated NUMEROUS times that I believe God is our Creator!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 3:01 PM


Oh, so you do believe that we have a Creator?
then why not be open to legitimate teaching of ID?

Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2008 3:11 PM


But it's not indoctrination. It's presenting findings based on empirical evidence, which is not a religion in the first place. You are not required in public schools to believe in evolution, simply learn it as part of the curriculum and pack it away if you want. It's comparable to learning about Greek and Roman mythology in history class. No one expects you to believe that Zeus, Athena, Apollo, etc. are real, but to know that once upon a time people who played a big part in our history held worldviews that included these deities.

I think that Bethanys point is that if you can teach that people once believed that Zeus was real, why can't you teach that MANY, MANY, MANY people believe that the world has an intelligent Designer?

I think it would be fair to say that we have just as much reason (the UNrandomness of the universe) to believe that there IS a designer as that there isn't.

Perhaps we could call them both "soft science".

Posted by: mk at September 3, 2008 3:12 PM


Good point MK.

Elizabeth, I went overboard a little. I believe you are a Christian, sorry about that :)

Posted by: Jasper at September 3, 2008 3:15 PM


So you think that kids learning just the scientific facts is against your religion. But you don't see how kids being instructed to praise God for putting those facts there is against other people's religions?
Posted by: Alexandra at September 3, 2008 9:48 AM
********************************************

I dunno...I'd kinda like to think that if I painted an amazing portrait or created a fabulous sculpture that was then used as an example for say, instruction in an art class, I'd be given credit for it if my fingerprints were all over it. Or at the VERY least, it would be nice for someone to acknowledge that, indeed, it must have been created by SOMEONE with talent. ;)

How is saying that there is some design involved in the things on this planet in ANY way a governmental endorsement of one particular religion? Are we forcing children to read the Bible or Koran in public schools? Do we lead them in prayer each day against their wills? Do we force them to recite the Ten Commandments?

Would we, then, force them to say "the God of the Bible has created all of these things which we see and do not see"? Of course not. But common sense tells us (at least until it is indoctrinated OUT of us) that the things on this earth were not created from random chance. From the human brain to the paramecium (once thought to be "simple" organisms), there is incredible order in function.

When things go awry in an organism, we call those "DISorders." Why?? Because we naturally accept that there is and should be "order" in the world around us...a world and universe subject to certain laws. From where did the laws originate? Perhaps science cannot tell us, but they are most certainly there and we can study those laws and observe them in action. Some of our greatest scientists believed in the order of the universe and in the fact that an orderly intelligence must be behind it.

I have no problem believing in microevolution (or as we called in when I was in school, "adaptation"--funny how the terms have changed, huh?) but I am still looking to see how we can say that one species evolved into another based on fact rather than conjecture (i.e. homology).

It's not a public school's job (or a college professor's job) to tut-tut an individual's personal religious beliefs, either, to be fair. I had a college prof who decided to go on an unprovoked tirade about how she didn't understand why people couldn't believe the Bible AND evolution. Was I paying her for her lecture in "philosophy"? I don't recall signing up for that. (And yet, when we studied the structure of the "simple" cell in her class, I MARVELED at its order and complexity.) I often get the feeling that some professors and scientists of the world think that they are so very far above the average "peon" and feel that their espousing of philosophically atheistic doctrine is somehow "science." (I've heard Dawkins before. If his religion isn't atheism, then he sure could've fooled me. He's pretty mocking and condescending when it comes to people who are not atheists. He even claims that his study of evolutionary "science" was the straw that broke the camel's back when it came to his own belief in God.)



"Because evolution is a HUGE principle in science.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 10:26 AM"
*********************************

Could you please explain to me how my understanding of complex biological systems was somehow hindered by my disbelief in macroevolution?

Posted by: Kel at September 3, 2008 3:25 PM


"why can't you teach that MANY, MANY, MANY people believe that the world has an intelligent Designer?"


You can. In the right classroom. They don't teach Zeus in any ol' subject. It has to pertain to what is actually studied in that subject. World religions class? you bet. Philosophy? Popular culture? Absolutely. We just don't want to confuse our youth about what consitutes science--and supernatural does not, no matter what the scientist believes personally.

Richard Dawkins is great at biology/science/evolution topics, and he's welcome to teach those in a science class. On the other hand, his belief that that's all there is should not be taught; that is bringing personal belief in there.

"Perhaps we could call them both "soft science"."
Why not just call it what it is? Why do you guys have a problem calling it a worldview?
(world views are not studied in the natural sciences--except maybe anthropology)

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 3:25 PM


I will say that the biggest thing about Evolution in the classroom is that it is often postulated in a way that makes Christian kids feel dumb. I knew where I stood when evolution was taught to me, and I had and still have plenty of logistical objections (such as the abscence of macroevolution...or my favorite...why would a genetic mutation so tiny to start the eye be favored by natural selection?) but it did feel embaressing. I think that it would be nice to just have a short aside to recognize that Evolution can in fact be reasonably and logically including in Christianity, or that God did in fact create the Earth in the literal words of the Bible...but that He made it in a way that it just seems to us that it is this way.

Posted by: Oliver at September 3, 2008 3:30 PM


understanding of complex biological systems was somehow hindered by my disbelief in macroevolution?

because otherwise you'd have a hard time explaining anything that works in complex biological systems in a real sense.

You would say, "well all of this DNA similarity stuff is all coincidence."
The reason why we work on model organisms is because we know that we are related to those animals on some level so we rely on the fact that they may react in some way similar to the processes we do. You would have no way of explaining that other than that that's just the way it works.
You can describe the intricate food web and ecosystem relationships but you would have no explanation for why they rely on each other so heavily, other than "that's the way it is."

Don't you see...it leaves out a more holistic, complete understanding of things. Evolution ties all of these loose ends together- it is the unifying theory. Nothing else explains these patterns to date.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 3:31 PM


"And Bobby, whats your beef with the Jesuits? That priest actually was greeted with skepticism because they questioned his intentions. Jesuits have been on the front lines of social justice for many years and continue to do so. I'm quite fond of them."

Haha. Well, I'm glad to hear the ones you've encountered are good. They just tend to dissent a lot from Catholic teaching. It seems that every new, wacky theological idea that's out there is proposed by a Jesuit. Karl Rahner was a Jesuit, too. Quite the bum he is.

There are some good ones, like Father Mitch Pacwa and Father Joseph Fessio. But in general, many of them do not seem to submit themselves to the teaching authority of the church.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 3:33 PM


" Evolution can in fact be reasonably and logically including in Christianity"

Absolutely- in my evolution class something to that effect was stated. Actually something like that was stated in my bio 101 class.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 3:33 PM


PIP,

Normally I don't touch these discussions with a 10 foot pole but I do recall it was a Jesuit who came up with the Big Bang theory. Also, wasn't Galileo viewed as a heretic for his scientific observations?

Posted by: Mary at September 3, 2008 3:55 PM


PIP,
I haven't been able to follow this long thread all day. After skimming, I noticed you quoted a few Catholic-related evolution articles. Have you seen this book (which I have not read). I think you might find it interesting.

Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (Hardcover)
by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You said: "Jesuits have been on the front lines of social justice for many years and continue to do so. I'm quite fond of them."

The adherence to Church teachings is essential for priests because they are shepherds of the Church. Of course their attention to social issues is quite important and admirable. That said, I once heard it said that "priests are religious leaders - not social workers". This is not an official statement of the Church, but it rings true to me.

Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2008 5:14 PM


I believe the reason that some people home school is because they don't want PP indoctrinating their children with pornographic sex ed in public schools.

And some home school because they want to.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 3, 2008 5:44 PM


New story today:

MCCAIN BACKERS ACCUSE MEDIA, DEMS OF SEXISM WITH PALIN
http://elections.foxnews.com/category/top-story/

"... The speakers made reference to several reports in recent days, including the cover of US Weekly that shows a picture of Palin and her baby with the words “babies, lies and scandal...”

"Barack Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs told FOX News his campaign was “absolutely not” being sexist."


Posted by: Janet at September 3, 2008 5:48 PM


LizfromNebraska:

I'm perfectly fine with that. I personally hope to be able to send my daughter to the Catholic school that is attached to our church. It is a wonderful parish and a great school. If she doesn't go there, we have a nice public elementary school 2 houses down from us. If she goes to public school, she'll go to the religious ed. classes at our church that I went to as a child. Either way, she'll have a good faith base. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 3, 2008 6:09 PM


You can. In the right classroom. They don't teach Zeus in any ol' subject. It has to pertain to what is actually studied in that subject. World religions class? you bet. Philosophy? Popular culture? Absolutely. We just don't want to confuse our youth about what consitutes science--and supernatural does not, no matter what the scientist believes personally.

PIP, Why does the Big Bang get to be taught in Science, as it is philosophical, and you said that philosophy does not belong in Science?

Why don't we just teach Big Bang in philosophy class?

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 6:26 PM


PiP:

By the way, just out of curiosity... This is related to another discussion we had a while back about this same topic... If Adam is a figurative person, then why is there genealogy that traces from him to Jesus Christ? Also, where do you think sin and death originated? And.. What is your interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:22?

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 6:45 PM


PIP, 12:36. Okay then. If some aspects of evolution can be falsified, but others cannot, what makes it more scientific than Intelligent design- some aspects being falsifiable, and some not? In my 9:32 AM post, I showed you an example of how ID can be falsified. And in my 9:40 AM post, I showed a link with examples of how evolution cannot be falsified.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 8:14 PM


There are some good ones, like Father Mitch Pacwa and Father Joseph Fessio. But in general, many of them do not seem to submit themselves to the teaching authority of the church.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 3, 2008 3:33 PM

Bobby! I had wanted to reply to your earlier posts that mentioned Jesuit priests and was planning to mention those two!! I know what you mean about the Jesuits -- many seem to have forgotten their roots! :)
God love you :D

Posted by: Eileen at September 3, 2008 9:02 PM


"PIP, Why does the Big Bang get to be taught in Science, as it is philosophical"

Because it is not. How people integrate it into their worldview not in the interest of science.


"By the way, just out of curiosity... This is related to another discussion we had a while back about this same topic... If Adam is a figurative person, then why is there genealogy that traces from him to Jesus Christ? Also, where do you think sin and death originated? And.. What is your interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:22?"
Bethany, I think that Vatican article says it much better than I could (that's what they are there for lol).

"f some aspects of evolution can be falsified, but others cannot,"
Whoa....which cannot?

We in many subjects haven't directly observed what happened in the past. Bobby brought up forensics. Could be dinosaurs. Or ancient civilizations. Either way, we rely on the evidence to guide us. If something we formerly believed is demonstrated to be wrong via new evidence, we have the change the theory. So, which fundamental parts that make up evolutionary theory can't be falsified?

I forgot to address the ID "falsifiable" thing above. I highly doubt when we figure out how the flagellum works completely that you will scrap ID. You know why? Because it's an ideology by its very nature.
Here's a start, and she links to more, if you are interested:
http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave_flagella.htm


to further what was said above in the falsifiable realm, in now way is it EVER a requirement to have 'been there' to start determining events from the past. Do you have to have lived with the dinosaurs to believe that they were there?
That article continues onto worldview--since science doesn't comment on the worldview, that is beside the point so I won't stay there.
Blah blah blah, "no transitional forms" (a lie--those videos I linked to you in the past went into great detail about transitional fossils)...that site even denies the forces required for simple adaptation are all non-factual. There's nowhere to start.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 10:09 PM


Okay, PIP, I don't have time to respond to all of your comments tonight (will get to them tomorrow when I can), but can you please tell me exactly how people would need to integrate the Big Bang into their worldview in order to make it 'philosophical' by your definition? And how the science books avoid pushing the philosophy aspect of Big Bang?

Once you let me know this, then we can determine whether the texts in school books about the Big Bang are "philosophical" by your definition or not.

I'll go check some school books out at the library, or I'll find some at a yard sale, and we shall see.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 10:39 PM


Bethany,

Well in short, from the evidence it looks like the big bang happened There is observational data that is consistent with the theory. whether you believe that means God exists, or doesn't, is up to you. If/when new evidence comes to light that makes it needed to modify the theory or come up with a new one, how you attribute it to a God or lack of God, completely up to you, but a separate issue.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 11:02 PM


PIP, I don't really think you answered my question.

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 11:09 PM


oops, questions

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 11:14 PM


Also, just a thought... I could say the same thing about ID:

"Well in short, from the evidence it looks like Intelligent Design happened. There is observational data that is consistent with the theory. whether you believe that means God exists, or doesn't, is up to you. If/when new evidence comes to light that makes it needed to modify the theory or come up with a new one, how you attribute it to a God or lack of God, completely up to you, but a separate issue."

Posted by: Bethany at September 3, 2008 11:18 PM


What do you mean?

Science books avoid 'philosophy' because it focuses on observational evidence.
Here's a little bit about big bang (with links):
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

It's true that studying this might lead to the philosophical part. Most physics classes acknowledge that and move on.
Same with evolution. We study the facts. Most classes acknowledge the fact that some people believe different things about God in relation to evolution, and we move on and keep a studyin'. That's how we avoid the confusion. Unfortunately the popular media tends to...not...so we have a lot of confused people.

ID is completely subjective. We can test space and use math, etc. and confirm that it (so far) supports the big bang theory for example. But, because ID purports special creation, there is no way to study that process- there is no way to follow evidence of a "poof into existence" because no evidence for that mechanism is there.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 11:53 PM


pip,
What you big bang black hole evolutionists fail to understand is the infinitismalness of your ability to really understand creation. You have to begin by admitting to yourself that you haven't got a clue and teach the origins of creation with honesty by admitting that you are just making your best guess because the theories you have today are most likely really, really, really way off. It wasn't till this year that we even had a conception of the edge of galaxy being anything other than round, and our galaxy is only the equivalent of a speck of dust that could be blown away in an instant. Honesty and humility are a requirement when teaching children what is factual and the creation of the universe is a really unprovable so classrooms should at least begin by teaching children that it is only theory and that they really have almost no clue. Thats honest and humility pip.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 4, 2008 12:05 AM


ts,

If you read the sources they make it abundantly clear that the theories, like all of science, is still tentative. Scientists are actually very skeptical of their own hypotheses (that's why they do experiments). It's too bad you only get to know a few of those (Dawkins et al) that are brash and open about their beliefs. But it's a no win situation for you. If we explain the best we can about what is there as we know it, we are too proud- if like some of the scientists in 'expelled' really try to humor questions, answer them as well as can be answered in the span of an interview (compared to the vast knowledge available) we are too weak.

In fact I will postulate that you are afraid of learning the material, or else you should bring up your religious grievances with your own church. Honestly and humbly.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 12:14 AM


Oh ts, I guess to be short, my post kind of winded along:

In essence EVERYTHING in science is a 'best guess.' That's Biology 101!!

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 12:17 AM


wow, aren't you touchy....
I think it should be taught because it is the best we have as a scientific explanation at this time. I just think you and everybody else who teaches it should openly admit that even as "thoery" it is not on the same level as the things we teach in chemistry and physics. Would you not agree with that?

Posted by: truthseeker at September 4, 2008 12:19 AM


or botany, or biology, or geology etc.. etc.. etc

Posted by: Anonymous at September 4, 2008 12:27 AM


"openly admit that even as "thoery" it is not on the same level as the things we teach in chemistry and physics. Would you not agree with that?"

Absolutely not. Not only is botany within the scope of biology and again described by evolution, but evolution is one of the most well-founded theories in science. As demonstrated before, most physics-related theories are heavily based in mathematics, and a lot of chemical theories are based on less direct observations than evolution. Evolution is central to understanding of biological systems. Otherwise as I explained above, everything is just a series of facts.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 12:43 AM


because otherwise you'd have a hard time explaining anything that works in complex biological systems in a real sense.

You would say, "well all of this DNA similarity stuff is all coincidence."
**********************************

Wow, I strongly disagree with that. That's like saying, "Hmm, the fact that we're made up of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, water, etc., just happens to be coincidence." It isn't. Things in the universe are made up of the same basic elements, so it's no surprise to me that those elements were used to create both living and nonliving things. And I have no problem believing in the genius of DNA. By the way, how did THAT come about by random chance? It's so complex, we've only recently mapped the human genome.

"The reason why we work on model organisms is because we know that we are related to those animals on some level so we rely on the fact that they may react in some way similar to the processes we do. You would have no way of explaining that other than that that's just the way it works."
***********************************

Not exactly. The way I see it, "science" (evolutionary theory) has decided that the idea of God must be put completely out of the equation, which frankly, I think is very strange, since He is the Creator of all things, but we MUST do so in order to arrive at our evolutionary theory of order from chaos. (You do realize that macro-evolutionary theory really would have to disobey the 2nd law of thermodynamics, right?)

Now, there is nothing wrong with seeing how things are similar in DNA (again, not surprising, as the DNA structure is genius, and who wants to tamper with genius?), the problem I have is the assumption that all these things must have evolved from each other, randomly, over millions of years, without any intelligence involved. I don't think it's very intelligent to assume that.


"Don't you see...it leaves out a more holistic, complete understanding of things. Evolution ties all of these loose ends together- it is the unifying theory. Nothing else explains these patterns to date."
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 3:31 PM
******************************

There's no unifying "theory." There is a God, however. "In Him all things hold together..."
I hope that one day you will see Him and experience His incredible plan and "tapestry weaving" in your own life.
Evolutionists and ID proponents would both do well to at least admit this, but evolutionists rarely do: it really begins with a worldview. Once your worldview is solidified, you often choose to interpret your "evidence" according to your own worldview. Facts are facts, but you and I both know that even in radiocarbon dating, one must make an estimate as to how old a fossil is before it is even tested. Then we keep testing till we hit a date in our pre-assumed "range." "Facts" can be manipulated to back up our own assumptions.

I'm going to say something that most here will probably disagree with, and it's this: You CANNOT correctly separate science from the Creator, any more than you can separate His genius from mathematics, or the arts, or anything else. He IS the source of it all.

I find it hilarious that scientists like SJ Gould have said that scientific study dethrones human arrogance...au contraire...it is alive and well! In the process of realizing that we are not the center of the cosmos, WE have decided that God must be excluded as well.

"ID is completely subjective. We can test space and use math, etc. and confirm that it (so far) supports the big bang theory for example. But, because ID purports special creation, there is no way to study that process- there is no way to follow evidence of a "poof into existence" because no evidence for that mechanism is there.
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 3, 2008 11:53 PM"
********************************************

LOL-this made me laugh! No evidence for that mechanism...well, huh. Imagine that. I'm pretty sure that "mechanism" has left His fingerprints all over the universe, and very clearly in our human hearts.

Life basically "exploded" on to the scene in the pre-Cambrian period. Is that what you mean by a "poof into existence?" If you buy into the Big Bang (to which I'm not opposed, btw), then what caused it? How did all this matter get condensed into something the size of a pinhead or smaller? What caused it to explode? Ah, all the questions just lead to more speculation and questions, don't they? :D But seriously...if we have little evidence, then why is this taught in the science classroom?? I'd like to hear about how we've "tested space" and calculated the "big bang" if you have info on that.

BTW, I find the whole "string theory" very interesting. I saw it on Nova a while back and think it's pretty awesome if all matter really is created from tiny, vibrating "strings" of sound. "And the Lord God SAID..." ;) I know at this point, it's not proven (ahem: THEORY), but it sure seems like an interesting one.

Posted by: Kel at September 4, 2008 12:45 AM


pip, we are miscommunicating here on a really simple scientific concept that we both are referring to. Let me try again and maybe you can explain it to me.

In chemistry we have a lab book and experiments that we do like take water and boil it. We can capture the oxygen being released and prove the theory that oxygen is released when water is boiled

How can you do that with evolution theory as it realtes to creationism/the big bang.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 4, 2008 2:01 AM


I believe the reason that some people home school is because they don't want PP indoctrinating their children with pornographic sex ed in public schools.

And some home school because they want to.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 3, 2008 5:44 PM

right you are! That's probably the main reason as well as the fact that the curriculum in school is dumbed down.

Also I believe the late Fr. John Hardon was a Jesuit - faithful to the end and not well liked within his order.

Posted by: Patricia at September 4, 2008 6:29 AM


Hey Bethany. I was wondering, what specifically do you mean by Intelligent Design? Like, I know there are many meanings and many theories of it, and I'm only familiar with one. Is there either a good website with a lot of information or a book that would expound upon your understanding of ID? I don't know too much about this stuff and I"d like to follow along a little better. Thanks, God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 4, 2008 7:22 AM


What do you mean?

I mean, what exactly do you consider to be "philosophical"? Maybe you could define it a little more clearly for me, so that I can understand what makes the Big Bang theory NOT philosophical, in your eyes.

AND,what would be an erroneous way to teach it [the big bang] in science class.

What would be a philosophical way to bring it about, as opposed to purely scientific?

I hope this helps clarify my question.

Science books avoid 'philosophy' because it focuses on observational evidence.

I didn't ask you why they do it...I asked you how do they do it.

How do they separate philosophy from the Big Bang, since the entire concept is based on a speculation of how the world might have begun?

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 7:29 AM


Hey Bethany. I was wondering, what specifically do you mean by Intelligent Design? Like, I know there are many meanings and many theories of it, and I'm only familiar with one. Is there either a good website with a lot of information or a book that would expound upon your understanding of ID? I don't know too much about this stuff and I"d like to follow along a little better. Thanks, God love you.

My understanding...I believe that Intelligent Design is the idea that all of the complex things of the world, and all living things, can be best explained by an intelligent cause, and NOT a random, undirected cause such as natural selection.

Other than that, it is the only thing that separates ID Scientists from other scientists.

ID Scientists still use the same methods, tests, experiments, etc and come up with scientific conclusions based on what we can see and observe. We still come to natural, observable conclusions about things.

The only difference in ID's and evolutionists is that we see it through a different lens than that of those evolution proponents who feel that everything began as a result of randomness.

Everything we study is the result of intelligence, and is not the result of chance.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 7:37 AM


Bobby, maybe I could send you some exerpts from my kids science books, that could help you see what they're learning? :)

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 7:41 AM


oops, excerpts

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 7:42 AM


But Bobby, another thing. While I support ID being taught in schools...for my own home, I like teaching Creation Science, which is a little different, as it defines our creator.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 7:47 AM


Truthseeker, Kel, good posts.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 7:59 AM


Redefining science:

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/FirstLife04ElimCreator.htm

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:01 AM


"Bobby, maybe I could send you some exerpts from my kids science books, that could help you see what they're learning? :)"

Yeah, that would be great, Bethany!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 4, 2008 8:02 AM


What I can't seem to understand is the implication that acknowledging an intelligent designer somehow makes us incapable of making natural observations.

If I saw a watch, I would obviously acknowledge that someone designed the watch. However, I could still take the watch apart, learn about how it functions, etc. The fact that I am acknowledging that it has a designer does NOT prevent me from doing this . I cannot fathom why people keep insisting that acknowledging that there is an intelligent designer in Science would somehow prevent us from making scientific observations!

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:03 AM


Okay Bobby, I will see if I can either scan some pages in, or just type out some paragraphs from the books...
Give me a little bit of time. :)

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:05 AM


I was unaware that belief in "randomness" was a "must" in the theory of evolution.

I thought that it was really an explanation of life adapts to it's surroundings. Like we're no longer hairy because we don't need to be.

But that's not "random".

What am I missing? I mean sure, you can believe that the whole thing was random, or believe that it was caused by a creator, but I'm not sure how either view changes the fact that things do adapt.

When we say "theory of evolution" what are we talking about exactly? Because I didn't realize that randomness even entered the "scientific" picture...I thought that was a seperate issue. Am I wrong?

Posted by: mk at September 4, 2008 8:11 AM


Oh...if it's going to be a pain, don't worry about it. I thought you might have had it online or something. Would the book be easy to find? Perhaps my library has it.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 4, 2008 8:12 AM


Okay, I just opened to a random page...here's what I see:

"Mercury

Mercury is a difficult planet to observe with the naked eye. You must know exactly where to look, and you must look at the right time. Much of the time Mercury is too close to the sun for us to see. Only when the planet nears the "ends" of it's orbit---moves far enough east or west of the sun as viewed from the earth--- do we get the chance to view it. Even then it is never viewed at an angle larger than 28 degrees from the sun.

With it's diameter of about 4,800 km (3,000 mi.), Mercyry is the second smallest planet. It's mass is one-eighteenth of the earth's mass, and its gravity is too small to hold much of an atmosphere, composed of hydrogen, helium,, and trace amounts of carbon dioxide. These gases produce an atmospheric pressure of only one-ten thousandth of the atmospheric pressure at the surface of the earth. Photos of Mercury sent back to the earth by space probes show its surface to be full of craters, much like the surface of the moons.
Mercury, which was named after the speedy messenger of the Roman gods, travels at an average speed of almost 48 km/s (30 mi./s). The length of Mercury's year (the time for a complete orbit) is only eighty eight days. Although it moves through its orbit at great speed, Mercury spins slowly on its axis. "

This is page 81 of the book "Earth Science" for Christian Schools.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:12 AM


Oops, I had a few typos in there...

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:15 AM


That's my understanding too, MK. That this idea of "randomness" is really a philosophical interpretation snuck into the explanation. Because to say it is random, in the sense that ANYTHING else could have happened, does indeed imply that we are an accident and that human beings didn't have to come about via natural selection. I think a better word would be "unpredictable" or no discernible pattern, as it implies less of an atheistic agenda.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 4, 2008 8:19 AM


Hmmm, the only "god" that is mentioned in that paragraph is a pagan god...

So as far as I can tell, that seems indistinguishable from any other text on the same subject. But there must be sort of an underlying "this is all the work of God" theme going on through out the whole book, right? Of course, I agree with that.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 4, 2008 8:23 AM


Bobby,

I don't know why we have to say anything at all in a scientific sense. It's enough to change that things change over time without saying anything at all about how they got their to begin with. Even saying it is "unpredictable" implies that there IS NO pattern. But many people do see a pattern.

It just seems to me that evolution (scientifically speaking)can not even touch how it all "began". It can only address what happened after it began. A big bang does not in any way tell us where the thing that exploded came from...

I think the whole randomness thing falls into PIP's world view. While the hard science is simply discerning the path that it took. No?

Posted by: mk at September 4, 2008 8:24 AM


No, it's no problem at all, Bobby! :)

Here's a section that deals with an evolutionary theory:

"Fossil fuels exist as solid, liquid, and gas. Coal is the solid fossil fuel. Coal is sedimentary rock which appears to have been laid down by water. However, some geologists consider it to be a metamorphic rock because heat and pressure have changed it. There are three types of coal; lignite (LIG NITE), bituminous (bih TOO muh nus), and anthracite (AN thruh SITE). Each successive type contains more carbon and energy. Coal forms from plant remains. Creationists and evolutionists disagree about how these plants came to be deposited in layers and changed to coal.
Most evolutionists believe that plant debris in swampy areas 286 to 360 million years ago became covered with sediment whose weight, over long periods of time, caused the chemical and physical changes that converted the plant material to coal. This theory has problems. First, radiocarbon dates show that coal is only thousands of years old. Second, items made by humans have been found embedded in coal. Clearly, man lived on the earth before the coal formed. Third, large boulders have been found in coal. These indicate swift-moving currents, not flat stagnant swamps.

Most creationists believe that the coal formed as a result of the Flood. The sudden deep burial of pre-Flood plant life during the Flood could generate the heat and pressure needed to change the material to coal. Experiments have shown that little time is needed for coal to form. At high enough temperatures and pressures, coal can form in less than a day.
Oil is the liquid fossil fuel. Creationists and evolutionists agree that oil was formed from ocean-dwelling creatures such as fish and algae. When found, oil is usually associated with sexdimentary rocks of marine origin. Again, evolutionists believe that oil formed over millions of years, but creationists believe that it is formed quickly during the Flood.
Natural gas, the gaseous fossil fuel, is often found with oil. One theory is that gas is a by-product of the oil formation process. Gas provides the pressure to force the oil to the surface in the "gusher" sometimes accompanying the discovery of oil. When no gas is with the oil, the oil must be pumped to the surface.

That is from page 308 of Earth Science.

By the way, please note that this is NOT an Intelligent Design book...it is creation science, which I am using for my private studies at home with my children.

I will try to find a source for intelligent design studies sometime.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:25 AM


Hmmm, the only "god" that is mentioned in that paragraph is a pagan god...
So as far as I can tell, that seems indistinguishable from any other text on the same subject. But there must be sort of an underlying "this is all the work of God" theme going on through out the whole book, right? Of course, I agree with that.

Bobby, most of the book is just as you described. And of course, there are a few sections such as the paragraph I just posted above, which include differences in Creationism and Evolution. The text is just as Scientific as any other book, except that as you say, it has an underlying theme of "this is all the work of God". Thank you for seeing that- that's what I've been trying so hard to get across to PIP.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:28 AM


"By the way, how did THAT come about by random chance? It's so complex, we've only recently mapped the human genome."

We observe gene duplication, mutation, and rearrangement all the time.
DNA itself is a relatively simple molecule. It was finding a way to manipulate it that was difficult.

"Not exactly. The way I see it, "science" (evolutionary theory) has decided that the idea of God must be put completely out of the equation, which frankly, I think is very strange, since He is the Creator of all things, but we MUST do so in order to arrive at our evolutionary theory of order from chaos. (You do realize that macro-evolutionary theory really would have to disobey the 2nd law of thermodynamics, right?)"

Methodological naturalism has been the standard of science since at least Newton's time. That's how we come up with real explanations for things like disease (instead of God "punishing us").
And actually no it doesn't, b/c the 2nd law only applies for closed systems and Earth is an open system.

"There's no unifying "theory." There is a God, however. "In Him all things hold together..."
I hope that one day you will see Him and experience His incredible plan and "tapestry weaving" in your own life.
Evolutionists and ID proponents would both do well to at least admit this, but evolutionists rarely do: it really begins with a worldview. Once your worldview is solidified, you often choose to interpret your "evidence" according to your own worldview. Facts are facts, but you and I both know that even in radiocarbon dating, one must make an estimate as to how old a fossil is before it is even tested. Then we keep testing till we hit a date in our pre-assumed "range." "Facts" can be manipulated to back up our own assumptions."

No worldview involved- that is just propaganda you've been fed. Do some research on your own, I think you would be surprised.
And as I've said multiple times, many scientists ("evolutionists") do recognize God's hand in this- they just know that in their studies they must look for naturalistic explanations for natural phenomenon (you can't test supernatural). The Vatican document above says it nicely.
And yeah...read that other article about radioactive dating. You are not entitled to your own facts.

"LOL-this made me laugh! No evidence for that mechanism...well, huh. Imagine that. I'm pretty sure that "mechanism" has left His fingerprints all over the universe, and very clearly in our human hearts."
This has been explained many times in this dialogue. There is no reason to not believe in theistic evolution.

"Life basically "exploded" on to the scene in the pre-Cambrian period. Is that what you mean by a "poof into existence?"

The term "exploded" is relative in terms of time. It means rapid evolution relative to what it once was (probably with the advent of eukaryotic organisms). It was over a few million years.

"If you buy into the Big Bang (to which I'm not opposed, btw), then what caused it?"
REALLY? You are not opposed to a theory that has less evidence than the mounds for evolution, and you oppose evolution? Never heard that one before.

"How did all this matter get condensed into something the size of a pinhead or smaller? What caused it to explode? Ah, all the questions just lead to more speculation and questions, don't they? :D"
Yup that tends to be the nature of scientific inquiry.


"But seriously...if we have little evidence, then why is this taught in the science classroom??"
For Big Bang? It's just one of the ones with the most evidence right now. But even then there are other ideas-that are scientifically based- and those are taught.
There is literally tons of evidence for evolution.

"I'd like to hear about how we've "tested space" and calculated the "big bang" if you have info on that."
The link above has a brief explanation and leaves links to more information if you are interested.

"BTW, I find the whole "string theory" very interesting. I saw it on Nova a while back and think it's pretty awesome if all matter really is created from tiny, vibrating "strings" of sound. "And the Lord God SAID..." ;) I know at this point, it's not proven (ahem: THEORY), but it sure seems like an interesting one."

I think it's pretty interesting. We don't use the word proven in science. Everything is tentative. We only go on what we know right now- a discovery can change everything.

More responses later!

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 8:31 AM


I think it's pretty interesting. We don't use the word proven in science. Everything is tentative. We only go on what we know right now- a discovery can change everything.

I don't understand why you would want to believe something that you have doubts about, or which could change eventually. Why believe something that you are unsure about?

I played your falsification game yesterday, but didn't get my point at all, so I am going to just let that go.

The idea that something has to be falsifiable in order to be true? That makes no sense to me.

It'd be like saying that I can only know that I'm telling the truth if someone can prove that I am lying.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:35 AM


DNA itself is a relatively simple molecule. It was finding a way to manipulate it that was difficult.

I'm sorry but making that type of statement is the epitome of arrogance.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 8:43 AM


MK,

"Even saying it is "unpredictable" implies that there IS NO pattern."

No not quite. Something being unpredictable only means that we don't have the ability to predict what it will do. Quantum particles are a good example of this. Just because we don't know where they will end up does not mean that they are random or purposeless. They could very well have a purpose, it's just that we don't have the means to predict what it will do.

"I think the whole randomness thing falls into PIP's world view. While the hard science is simply discerning the path that it took. No?"

I'm not positive about that... I suppose we should be precise as to what we mean by "random." So let me make up an example and see what you and PiP and Bethany think:

Suppose there are a group of birds with soft beaks on an island which has a lot of nuts on it. By nuts, I mean that the food is contained in a very hard shell. Obviously, none of the birds are able to open the nuts to eat the food. However, a bird is born with a hard beak, and this allows him to open the nuts and eat them. Hence he is able to survive longer and pass on his "hard beak" gene, and soon the island is full of birds with a hard beak because all the soft beaked birds died out since they weren't able to eat. (I have no idea if something like this is even plausible, but let's just assume it for argument's sake)

So I think the question is; what caused that hard beaked bird to initially get that hard beak when it was conceived? Yes, I think we can all agree it was a change in the bird's genes. And see, that is where I would be happy to stop. But I think that someone like Dawkins would say that it was just something random; that it just happened to happen. And that is where I would disagree; I may not KNOW why it happened or be able to run an experiment that said "now the 40th born bird will have a hard beak", but to say it's random means that you do know why. So I would say that just because you don't see a pattern, a rhythm or reason for what's going on, this does NOT imply randomness.

So I dunno... what do you think about that, PiP?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 4, 2008 8:55 AM


"How can you do that with evolution theory as it realtes to creationism/the big bang."

Well I don't know about creationism.

Evolutionary theory is basically a series of principles:

1. Individuals within species vary widely (testable)
2. These variations are heritable (this is testable)
3. Some variations are more advantageous than others (testable and observable in the wild)
4. Advantageous variations increase fitness, thereby creating more individuals with the advantageous variations while the disadvantageous variations decrease fitness lessing the amount of individuals with that variation (testable).

Therefore, it is logical to state that this process of selection accounts for variations within species. It's also logical that these variations can become so great that speciation occurs. Because DNA can be duplicated, switched around, etc. with genetics it is very easy for the gene pool to introduce large amounts of diversity. Speciation has been observed in laboratory and observational settings and due to fossil evidence, etc. has been supported by historical findings as well.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 8:58 AM


Sorry, let me quickly give another example. Think about the number pi=3.14159265... People have been looking for thousands of years for patterns in pi. We have it calculated to billions (it may even be trillions?) of digits now, yet no one can find ANY sort of detectable pattern in pi. Does that mean that the numbers are random? Most mathematicians don't think so, even though finding a pattern has been futile. But people still keep looking.

Stuff like this (in math) has happened before where it seems that something is random and then we find a nice way of explaining it. That's what I'm sort of saying should be the case with these slight variations in genes that cause advantageous traits in animals. We may not see a pattern, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 4, 2008 9:02 AM


Even Richard Dawkins admits: "there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over"

And yet, I see PIP talking about how DNA is somehow "simple"? Unless she meant something different than what I take it to mean, I just can't see how anyone can be so arrogant to make that statement.

"The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content.8 Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information." (quoted from AIG)

And then I hear someone describing DNA as "simple"? What in the world?

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 9:17 AM


More information about "simple" DNA:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5158

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5174

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 9:33 AM


Bobby,

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say. That just because you don't see the pattern, doesn't mean there isn't one and claiming that there isn't one because you don't see it, is equal to claiming that you do see a pattern...

So claiming that life came into being by accident is as much a "world view" as claiming it came into being through a creator. Neither is truly science. And yet it seems that the "random" theory IS taught in schools. If that is the case then the idea that it might NOT be random should be given equal air time, adding that we just don't know.

Posted by: mk at September 4, 2008 10:00 AM


Stuff like this (in math) has happened before where it seems that something is random and then we find a nice way of explaining it. That's what I'm sort of saying should be the case with these slight variations in genes that cause advantageous traits in animals. We may not see a pattern, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Precisely. We don't know that the "ability" to adapt was not "plugged into" the DNA (or whatever).

Random? Caused? There is no way to know and that is the part that Bethany (I think) is taking exception to.

Posted by: mk at September 4, 2008 10:02 AM


OK, so we're in agreement MK. It does seem to me that this is apart from the science of evolution. I guess I eagerly await to hear what PiP has to say about that.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 4, 2008 10:11 AM


"Evolutionary theory is basically a series of principles:

1. Individuals within species vary widely (testable)
2. These variations are heritable (this is testable)
3. Some variations are more advantageous than others (testable and observable in the wild)
4. Advantageous variations increase fitness, thereby creating more individuals with the advantageous variations while the disadvantageous variations decrease fitness lessing the amount of individuals with that variation (testable).

Therefore, it is logical to state that this process of selection accounts for variations within species.
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 8:58 AM
***************************************

Okay, here is where I think I'm confused...I actually AGREE with everything you've said here.
These things ARE observable, and as I said earlier, I believe in what we now term "microevolution."

But..."It's also logical that these variations can become so great that speciation occurs. Because DNA can be duplicated, switched around, etc. with genetics it is very easy for the gene pool to introduce large amounts of diversity. Speciation has been observed in laboratory and observational settings and due to fossil evidence, etc. has been supported by historical findings as well."

I think we have to be very careful with this part, because this is where macroevolution enters into the equation, and I have researched this (but thanks for insinuating that I know nothing at all and have never researched this). I have researched this topic and given speeches and reports on it for over fifteen years, and for those projects, the majority of writings that I used as sources were those by evolution proponents whose statements of "fact" continually contradict each other, some of them even on recordings and video.
I haven't treated YOU as an uneducated person, and I'd appreciate not being treated that way, either. You think I believe propaganda, fine. If that makes you feel better. However, you've just said you know nothing about ID or creationism, when most of the rest of us have researched them both. But maybe you wouldn't want to contaminate your scientific mind by researching the other theories, because those are merely "philosophical," right? And we're concerned with provable science. I guess all the scientists who believe, after decades of research, that evolutionary theory is false...well, they're just hacks and phonies, right? Is that some of the propaganda that YOU have been fed? Do some research for YOURself.

And did you just tell me that Earth systems do not obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics? This is from http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_37_34.html : "An open system includes the transfer and exchange of both matter and energy with the system's surroundings. All of the systems on Earth are classified as open systems. However, the Earth system as a whole is considered a closed system because there is a limit to how much matter is exchanged." Looks like that is being taught to students in public schools.

BTW, I don't look to the Vatican as my authority, with all due respect to my Catholic brothers and sisters. I am Protestant. The Bible is my only authority.

"There is no reason to not believe in theistic evolution."

Oh, there are LOTS of reasons, not the least of which are the moral implications of such a belief (in my opinion). To think that science and philosophy can always be wholly separate is illogical. Not sure why people who aren't believers think they can tell believers what their reasons for belief should and should not be. But, well, just like my college biology teacher, here it is again...philosophy.

"The term "exploded" is relative in terms of time. It means rapid evolution relative to what it once was (probably with the advent of eukaryotic organisms). It was over a few million years."

Not according to the sources I read and cited for my papers years ago. Got some proof about that "few million years"?

And nope, not opposed to the Big Bang "theory" because it presents itself as a theory and not as a fact, which it isn't.

"We don't use the word proven in science. Everything is tentative. We only go on what we know right now- a discovery can change everything."

Um, except, of course, for your highly proven and solid "theory of macro-evolution." Right?

Posted by: Kel at September 4, 2008 10:30 AM


pip at September 4, 8:58 AM

YOu still missed my point I was getting at. I was talking about science as it relates to the origins of life/big bang. This is cool to talk about but how could they run experiments or tests to prove it like they do for chemistry with chemical reaction labs or physics with projectile launching labs etc? If it is not recreatable then it is not scientifically provable right?

Posted by: truthseeker at September 4, 2008 10:36 AM


"I mean, what exactly do you consider to be "philosophical"? Maybe you could define it a little more clearly for me, so that I can understand what makes the Big Bang theory NOT philosophical, in your eyes."

Explaining that one theory in physics that explains what we observe in space is the Big Bang. (There are other proposed explanations for that evidence that can be described-big bang is the most widely accepted.) Philosophical would be whether you say that it means there's no god or that a supernatural being started it- these are things that can't be studied in a science classroom but rather in a philosophical one. However, it doesn't hurt to acknowledge that the big bang theory raises these philosophical questions to those who are learning it. Does that help?


"AND,what would be an erroneous way to teach it [the big bang] in science class."
Inferring that it means there is/is no god based on the theory. Just like I wouldn't mind a biology class saying, "some people believe that evolution is all there is and others believe a supernatural being guides it, but that is outside the scope of our class."

"What would be a philosophical way to bring it about, as opposed to purely scientific?"
Asking, "what does the big bang mean in terms of spirituality and our purpose in the universe?"--that would be a philosophical look at the theory.

"I hope this helps clarify my question."
I hope I answered it to your satisfaction :)

"I didn't ask you why they do it...I asked you how do they do it."
They explain the evidence that supports the theory, and maybe some disagreements about evidence that there is, etc.
In terms of evolution, my evolution book took a couple paragraphs to make the distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism, and explained that ontological naturalism is a separate principle, even if it might use science to back up its claim. They explained there are a variety of ways to interpret how the theory works within their perceptions of god and our purpose on the universe, but those discussions are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

"How do they separate philosophy from the Big Bang, since the entire concept is based on a speculation of how the world might have begun?"
I know it may be difficult from the human perspective and study of origins ultimately does lead to philosophy, but whether or not God did it is really not the issue for science--as mk pointed out, science works on what things are, how they work, why they work the way they work- science doesn't study who is the ultimate "author."

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 11:37 AM


"evolution proponents who feel that everything began as a result of randomness."
Evolution is anything but random.

"I don't understand why you would want to believe something that you have doubts about, or which could change eventually. Why believe something that you are unsure about?"
That's the way science works. Something is accepted through evidence unless there arises evidence to the contrary.
Evolution is not a worldveiw. There is no real "believing" involved in the truest sense. It is more of an acceptance.

"I played your falsification game yesterday, but didn't get my point at all, so I am going to just let that go."
mmkay..

"The idea that something has to be falsifiable in order to be true? That makes no sense to me."
Not what I said. something has to be falsifiable to be science. As I've said before, it's not ultimate truth science is searching for, unlike religion. Science is just searching for answers to questions about nature.

"It'd be like saying that I can only know that I'm telling the truth if someone can prove that I am lying."
No, it's saying in order to be classified as science, it has to be able to be 'proven' wrong. But because even our vast knowledge is still limited (there are so many things left to discover, and one discovery leads to at least 10 more questions), we never say that something is ultimately 'proven.' Make sense?

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 11:44 AM


"If I saw a watch, I would obviously acknowledge that someone designed the watch. However, I could still take the watch apart, learn about how it functions, etc. The fact that I am acknowledging that it has a designer does NOT prevent me from doing this . I cannot fathom why people keep insisting that acknowledging that there is an intelligent designer in Science would somehow prevent us from making scientific observations! "

Because under scientific exploration, we can only concern our studies with what can be falsified. Many scientists would SAY that they believe their science demonstrates a designer but again it's a separate issue. Concerning the watch, we would take it apart, see how it works, and how it got to the spot where we found it. Who put it there? We don't know. However the analogy is false, because a watch doesn't replicate itself or go through natural selection, it's sort of an inanimate object..


"I'm sorry but making that type of statement is the epitome of arrogance. "
Not really. After we discovered it, we were surprised how simple of a structure DNA is. It's 4 bases attached to a phosphate backbone. Chemistry keeps it together.
However, it is the manipulation of DNA (transcription, etc) that is more complicated. Actually RNA, although structurally more simple, is still more complicated (and to most people overlooked) since it has the ability to take different shapes and perform different functions.


"No not quite. Something being unpredictable only means that we don't have the ability to predict what it will do. Quantum particles are a good example of this. Just because we don't know where they will end up does not mean that they are random or purposeless. They could very well have a purpose, it's just that we don't have the means to predict what it will do."
Good analogy!

"Suppose there are a group of birds with soft beaks on an island which has a lot of nuts on it. By nuts, I mean that the food is contained in a very hard shell. Obviously, none of the birds are able to open the nuts to eat the food. However, a bird is born with a hard beak, and this allows him to open the nuts and eat them. Hence he is able to survive longer and pass on his "hard beak" gene, and soon the island is full of birds with a hard beak because all the soft beaked birds died out since they weren't able to eat. (I have no idea if something like this is even plausible, but let's just assume it for argument's sake)"
The classic "darwins finches" is a close example, just with beak length and wet/dry seasons producing different sizes of nuts.

"So I think the question is; what caused that hard beaked bird to initially get that hard beak when it was conceived? Yes, I think we can all agree it was a change in the bird's genes. And see, that is where I would be happy to stop. But I think that someone like Dawkins would say that it was just something random; that it just happened to happen."
Well in a sense the fact the mutation occurred was random. But the selection is the part of the evolutionary process that makes it anything BUT random- Dawkins agrees with that.

"And that is where I would disagree; I may not KNOW why it happened or be able to run an experiment that said "now the 40th born bird will have a hard beak", but to say it's random means that you do know why. So I would say that just because you don't see a pattern, a rhythm or reason for what's going on, this does NOT imply randomness."
Through genetic studies we have learned that there are many ways genetic diversity can inhabit populations, so usually it can be attributed to one of those reasons with the right research. So again usually randomness causes the genetic diversity; the fact that some died and others proliferated is non random because it corresponds with the outside environment--and now we have tools that can statistically predict what numbers we'll see based on these observations.

"So I dunno... what do you think about that, PiP?"

For the most part you have a good understanding :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 12:00 PM


"And yet, I see PIP talking about how DNA is somehow "simple"? Unless she meant something different than what I take it to mean, I just can't see how anyone can be so arrogant to make that statement."
DNA is structurally very simple. As I said. Go look at the structure. It can easily be put together.
As I said the manipulation of DNA is what is more complex. Making it into proteins etc.

"So claiming that life came into being by accident is as much a "world view" as claiming it came into being through a creator. Neither is truly science. And yet it seems that the "random" theory IS taught in schools. If that is the case then the idea that it might NOT be random should be given equal air time, adding that we just don't know."

The first life form: how it got there is NOT evolution. There is a few hypotheses.
As I have been saying it's not a worldview because science doesn't propose to know anything about the REASON it got there.
Noone is claiming the process of evolution is random, because it's not.
And again, you are being mislead because ontological naturalists like Dawkins and PZ Myers use science to say there is nothing else, but that is their own philosophical worldview and it is not being taught in schools! The most that should be taught concerning that is that "people have different takes about what evolution means, but that is outside the scope of this classroom."


"Precisely. We don't know that the "ability" to adapt was not "plugged into" the DNA (or whatever).

Random? Caused? There is no way to know and that is the part that Bethany (I think) is taking exception to."

Right...that's kind of what I'm going for. The genetic variation is introduced in a variety of ways (many times it is the result of a copying error or migration), and the adaptation is a result of the environment acting on the DNA's phenotypes (expression).
We don't know if something did or did not create these processes, but the fact that these life forms continue to do all of this is pretty amazing!

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 12:10 PM


"Okay, here is where I think I'm confused...I actually AGREE with everything you've said here.
These things ARE observable, and as I said earlier, I believe in what we now term "microevolution."

Same principles, same theory...

"I think we have to be very careful with this part, because this is where macroevolution enters into the equation, and I have researched this (but thanks for insinuating that I know nothing at all and have never researched this)."
I'm not saying you haven't done research, just saying in some ways research has mislead you-trust me, often the best way to learn this is in the classroom.
Anyway, 'macroevolution' in the sense of speciation occurring has been observed. Species are reproductively isolated organisms. Sometimes species change so much that a population becomes reproductively isolated from another segment of the original population...this has been observed many times.

"I have researched this topic and given speeches and reports on it for over fifteen years, and for those projects, the majority of writings that I used as sources were those by evolution proponents whose statements of "fact" continually contradict each other, some of them even on recordings and video. "
What continually contradicts?


"I haven't treated YOU as an uneducated person, and I'd appreciate not being treated that way, either. You think I believe propaganda, fine."
I believe some of what you have been saying reflects some pro-ID propaganda that is misleading but easily believable. I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was just warning you that it's important to pay attention to the sources. I used to be an ID too, you know. I've been there.

"However, you've just said you know nothing about ID or creationism, when most of the rest of us have researched them both."
Huh? when did I ever say I know nothing about ID or creationism? I used to believe in ID (in some form-i.e. theistic evolution- I still do. Just different mechanism). Sometimes I need questions reiterated for me- I like to be as thorough as possible in my understanding and rebuttal.


"But maybe you wouldn't want to contaminate your scientific mind by researching the other theories, because those are merely "philosophical," right?"
NO. when did I EVER say I didn't research other theories? Now who's making the assumptions here?
My only point ever since I've been here was that ID is an acceptable philosophical one to study and believe, and yes, I have taken philosophy courses and studied a lot of this independently, BUT no matter WHAT, it is still a philosophical topic and not a scientific one! Holy moly.

"And we're concerned with provable science."
At least, falsifiable science.

"I guess all the scientists who believe, after decades of research, that evolutionary theory is false...well, they're just hacks and phonies, right?"
No they just haven't come up with anything that contradicts evolution in a real way.

"Is that some of the propaganda that YOU have been fed? Do some research for YOURself."
No, I switched sides when I did the proper research and spent a couple years studying it.

"However, the Earth system as a whole is considered a closed system because there is a limit to how much matter is exchanged."
Because the sun provides energy (though may not be forever, another topic), the energy being fed into the system and thermochemical reactions creates an open system where complexity can be accomplished.

Here's a good explanation:

"Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.
his site, and especially http://www.secondlaw.com, have shown repeatedly that it is fallacious to view the second law as a predictor of disorder. The second law concerns energy, not patterns of objects. The second law states that energy tends not to be restricted to one or a few energy levels in atoms and molecules, but to be dispersed to as many such levels as possible – rephrased in homely terms involving molecules, "Intense or concentrated energy tends to spread out and diffuse".

In that spreading-out process, macro objects sometimes are displaced and moved to random arrangements that humans subjectively define as "disorder". A violent wind not only can break a window in a building and blow the papers in an office all over a square mile, but also destroy the building itself. However, this is an incidental consequence of dispersing and spreading out of the energy in a tornado, not an event that is due to the innate nature or behavior of inanimate objects themselves in the absence of such an energy flow. Moving common objects around so they fall in disorder is a singular and accidental aspect of the universal tendency of energy to diffuse, not the general thrust or meaning or requirement of the second law that applies to objects.

Further, as described in the first section of this website, the second law is a tendency, not an instantly effected edict. Its predictions might not come true for millions or billions of years. These kinds of delay are due to the second law being obstructed and hindered by what chemists call "activation energies". All the biochemicals in our bodies except inorganic substances are protected and kept from oxidation or other disastrous reaction by activation energies. Almost all the materials from which our orderly prized artifacts are made are similarly kept from rapid oxidation in air. The second law is a powerful generality, but it is often blocked (to our human advantage) in chemical substances, chemical reactions, and physical events in everyday life."

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html


"Looks like that is being taught to students in public schools."
Or Christian schools? Don't you trust your own religion?

"BTW, I don't look to the Vatican as my authority, with all due respect to my Catholic brothers and sisters. I am Protestant. The Bible is my only authority."
I'm sure reading it will help you get a good idea of what a Christian, theistic evolution position looks like, if you are truly interested.

"Oh, there are LOTS of reasons, not the least of which are the moral implications of such a belief (in my opinion). To think that science and philosophy can always be wholly separate is illogical."
There are fundamentals of science that are standard and have been working for centuries. Who are you to change that?

"Not sure why people who aren't believers think they can tell believers what their reasons for belief should and should not be."
Well, good thing I am a believer.

"Not according to the sources I read and cited for my papers years ago. Got some proof about that "few million years"?"
Sorry the few million years got lost on ya. It was an exaggeration. But no, it was over some millions of years.
According to fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm,
"the theory of the Cambrian Explosion holds that, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms."

"And nope, not opposed to the Big Bang "theory" because it presents itself as a theory and not as a fact, which it isn't."
What are you talking about? Evolution as a theory explains the facts. I don't know about you, but no real biologist has ever called the evolution theory a 'fact.'

"Um, except, of course, for your highly proven and solid "theory of macro-evolution." Right?"

No. If there were a real alternate explanation that explained all the data, it would be mentionable. If something came along that falsified macro-evolution, it will not be accepted anymore.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 12:35 PM


"If it is not recreatable then it is not scientifically provable right?"

Not necessarily in all respects. Do we have to recreate all history to put together the pieces of the past? We have to be able to predict the effects and test the predictions however. Beyond that, we recreate evolution on a small scale all the time.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 12:39 PM


Okay, PIP....I can see that you think it's impossible that your class might mislead you about anything, ever.

I'm going to drop this conversation now because frankly, I am tired of hearing you politely explain to us how intellectually superior you are to everyone else, simply because you went to college for two years and have changed YOUR mind.

I'm sorry you can't imagine that we're not idiots. Many very intelligent minds and very scientific minds are proponents of ID. I'm sorry you can't believe that our theory about the earth, it's age, what the fossils mean, etc...might possibly be just as valid a theory as evolution and all of it's theories.

I'll let you have the last word.

Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 2:49 PM


"Okay, here is where I think I'm confused...I actually AGREE with everything you've said here.
These things ARE observable, and as I said earlier, I believe in what we now term "microevolution."

Same principles, same theory...

*********************************

No, macroevolution is not an observable process. Microevolution is. The implications of macroevolution are disturbing and I don't believe they are solidly supported.

"I'm not saying you haven't done research, just saying in some ways research has mislead you-trust me, often the best way to learn this is in the classroom."
*******************************

Again, you're assuming things about my education and/or intelligence. I HAVE studied this in the classroom. College research papers, and biology and physiology classes...various books written by proponents of evolution. You asked me "what continually contradicts?" Evolutionists contradict each other on many counts, and they are continually amending their living, breathing "theory" when the evidence doesn't fit their previous version of the theory. And I was referring to the books I read...the statements made by the evolutionists in these books contradicted each other, as did the evolutionists themselves in video clips that were taken during the same debates. Don't ask me the title...it was a long time ago and I thankfully finished college a while ago. :D

"Anyway, 'macroevolution' in the sense of speciation occurring has been observed. Species are reproductively isolated organisms. Sometimes species change so much that a population becomes reproductively isolated from another segment of the original population...this has been observed many times."
*************************************

I *think* I'm speaking of something different here, unless I'm not understanding you correctly...I'm speaking about macroevolution in the sense of change from one KIND of animal to another. I of course agree that all cats in the cat family are related and that there are many species of cats, as are all dogs in the dog family related to each other. I just do not believe that somewhere along the way, they had a common ancestor.

"I believe some of what you have been saying reflects some pro-ID propaganda that is misleading but easily believable. I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was just warning you that it's important to pay attention to the sources. I used to be an ID too, you know. I've been there."

You've "been there?" Where, at my point of sheer propagandized, non-classroom ignorance? LOL You're "warning me?" (You don't have to "try" to be condescending, but it sure does come across that way.)
I've already told you that I did research this, sat through ALL the biology and physiology courses (yes, in a classroom), went to public school, etc. The more I learned about evolution from wholly secular (read NON-ID) sources, the more holes I found. I hadn't even heard about ID or creationism until years later. When I finally did my college papers and research, I purposely did NOT use creationist or ID sources, I used sources by the macro-evolution proponents themselves.

"Huh? when did I ever say I know nothing about ID or creationism? I used to believe in ID (in some form-i.e. theistic evolution- I still do. Just different mechanism). Sometimes I need questions reiterated for me- I like to be as thorough as possible in my understanding and rebuttal.
****************************************

Sorry, I took your reply to Bethany: "I don't know about creationism" to mean that you actually didn't know anything about it.

"NO. when did I EVER say I didn't research other theories? Now who's making the assumptions here?
My only point ever since I've been here was that ID is an acceptable philosophical one to study and believe, and yes, I have taken philosophy courses and studied a lot of this independently, BUT no matter WHAT, it is still a philosophical topic and not a scientific one! Holy moly.
*****************************************

You're right, I did assume that. However, I say again that it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to completely exclude one's philosophical viewpoints from interpretation of the scientific evidence.

"I guess all the scientists who believe, after decades of research, that evolutionary theory is false...well, they're just hacks and phonies, right?"
No they just haven't come up with anything that contradicts evolution in a real way."
************************************

In your non-professional opinion. Some brilliant scientists have arrived at the conclusion that ID is a very strong theory. Some of our most brilliant scientists throughout history have been proponents of ID and/or creationism. I've even known people who switched from atheism to Christianity once they realized that, in all their studies, random, unguided evolution could most definitely not explain the formation of what we see.

"Is that some of the propaganda that YOU have been fed? Do some research for YOURself."
No, I switched sides when I did the proper research and spent a couple years studying it."
**************************************

Ah, the "proper" research. I see. Again, the rest of us have been improperly educated.

"However, the Earth system as a whole is considered a closed system because there is a limit to how much matter is exchanged."
Because the sun provides energy (though may not be forever, another topic), the energy being fed into the system and thermochemical reactions creates an open system where complexity can be accomplished.*************************

From what I've read, it looks like the jury is still out on this. But maybe that particular jury just didn't do the "proper research."

"Looks like that is being taught to students in public schools."
Or Christian schools? Don't you trust your own religion?"
*************************************

Huh? I was referring to the site...it appeared to be an educator's site for teaching science in the public school.

And I don't trust in a "religion."

"BTW, I don't look to the Vatican as my authority, with all due respect to my Catholic brothers and sisters. I am Protestant. The Bible is my only authority."
I'm sure reading it will help you get a good idea of what a Christian, theistic evolution position looks like, if you are truly interested.
********************************************

I don't consider theistic evolution to be a "Christian" viewpoint, but ok.

"Oh, there are LOTS of reasons, not the least of which are the moral implications of such a belief (in my opinion). To think that science and philosophy can always be wholly separate is illogical."
There are fundamentals of science that are standard and have been working for centuries. Who are you to change that?
**************************************

I didn't say a thing about changing fundamentals of science. I said it is illogical to think that philosophical thought and scientific thought will ALWAYS be wholly separate. Meaning, philosophical viewpoints often find their way into scientific research.

"Not sure why people who aren't believers think they can tell believers what their reasons for belief should and should not be."
Well, good thing I am a believer.
*****************************************

If you do not believe in the fall of man, the redemption of Christ, and in the words of Christ, are you a believer? Christ taught about the special creation of man and the Genesis flood.
http://x-evolutionist.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!25A0033DD834DD1D!4533.entry

Do you accept these events?
I say this in all seriousness. We cannot live by cut-and-paste, pick-and-choose Christianity. I hope that you agree.


"What are you talking about? Evolution as a theory explains the facts. I don't know about you, but no real biologist has ever called the evolution theory a 'fact.'
**********************************

And yet amazingly, they treat it as one, and it is NOT to be questioned or debated.

"No. If there were a real alternate explanation that explained all the data, it would be mentionable. If something came along that falsified macro-evolution, it will not be accepted anymore.
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 12:35 PM"
***********************************

Well goody. I guess I'll just wait for the day that the atheistic, arrogant evolutionists are forced to acknowledge their errors. (Will it be a cold day in Hell?)

Posted by: Kel at September 4, 2008 3:21 PM


I'm going to drop this conversation now because frankly, I am tired of hearing you politely explain to us how intellectually superior you are to everyone else, simply because you went to college for two years and have changed YOUR mind.

I'm sorry you can't imagine that we're not idiots. Many very intelligent minds and very scientific minds are proponents of ID. I'm sorry you can't believe that our theory about the earth, it's age, what the fossils mean, etc...might possibly be just as valid a theory as evolution and all of it's theories.

I'll let you have the last word.
Posted by: Bethany at September 4, 2008 2:49 PM
********************************

Agreed. Go for it, O Enlightened One.

Posted by: Kel at September 4, 2008 3:23 PM


"No, macroevolution is not an observable process. Microevolution is. The implications of macroevolution are disturbing and I don't believe they are solidly supported."
But you haven't given me evidence to the contrary.


"Again, you're assuming things about my education and/or intelligence. I HAVE studied this in the classroom. College research papers, and biology and physiology classes...various books written by proponents of evolution."

No I have not. I think what you believe is misleading. I'm not saying you didn't "think" about it or didn't do research. I just think you are wrong. (as I said I didn't mean to come across as condescending. Perhaps my frustrations have seeped through. But in plain words I was just telling you I disagree and question your sources-it has nothing to do with your intelligence level).

"Evolutionists contradict each other on many counts,"
You haven't given me evidence to the contrary.


"and they are continually amending their living, breathing "theory" when the evidence doesn't fit their previous version of the theory."
Well yeah, isn't that kind of the point of science? To modify what we once thought if what we observe contradicts it? Now you are condemning us for it?

"And I was referring to the books I read...the statements made by the evolutionists in these books contradicted each other, as did the evolutionists themselves in video clips that were taken during the same debates. Don't ask me the title...it was a long time ago and I thankfully finished college a while ago. :D"

Haha, I still have a while to go on that last part. But if you are not tired of the debate I'd be happy to exchange some titles with you.


"I *think* I'm speaking of something different here, unless I'm not understanding you correctly...I'm speaking about macroevolution in the sense of change from one KIND of animal to another."
What is a "kind"? Speak in terms we can test.


" I just do not believe that somewhere along the way, they had a common ancestor."
I just believe that if it happens enough to reproductively isolate organisms, and we have fossil and paleontological evidence, it's perfectly reasonable that it happens on a grander scale. It just takes time.

"You've "been there?" Where, at my point of sheer propagandized, non-classroom ignorance?"
I've been at the ID thing, and have done the research. JESUS CHRIST. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm trying to be nice and connect with you. I have been there. And found out about a lot of stuff. If I thought I knew everything I wouldn't engage in debates with you guys. But just because I'm younger doesn't mean you can't learn anything from me, and just because your older doesn't mean I"m not allowed to question your sources.


"(You don't have to "try" to be condescending, but it sure does come across that way.) "
Feel free to end it then.

"I've already told you that I did research this, sat through ALL the biology and physiology courses (yes, in a classroom), went to public school, etc. The more I learned about evolution from wholly secular (read NON-ID) sources, the more holes I found."
I'd just like to see those holes.


"I hadn't even heard about ID or creationism until years later."
That's too bad. It might have been because it isn't science. (I'm not saying it's not right [obviously I don't think so, but all philosophical ideas are in the same realm], I'm just saying it's not science.)

"When I finally did my college papers and research, I purposely did NOT use creationist or ID sources, I used sources by the macro-evolution proponents themselves."
Like what?

"Sorry, I took your reply to Bethany: "I don't know about creationism" to mean that you actually didn't know anything about it."
I was probably talking about I don't know about what she was saying- to relate evolution theory to creationism/big bang. These are 2 separate concepts. I wasn't sure how to approach the first one.


"You're right, I did assume that. However, I say again that it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to completely exclude one's philosophical viewpoints from interpretation of the scientific evidence."
That may be true- for the human person. It's in our nature to bring philosophical viewpoints on everything. It is just important to know when to include it in our studies (where is the right place.) I do not believe a science classroom is the right place for ID. I think a philosophy or theology classroom is. Or a class about "science and religion" or something directly related to the topic.

"In your non-professional opinion."
Yeah. Pretty much most of this conversation has to do with opinion, right?


"Some brilliant scientists have arrived at the conclusion that ID is a very strong theory."
I have looked into this, and I think most of their claims are invalid. "MY OWN UNPROFESSIONAL OPINION"


"Some of our most brilliant scientists throughout history have been proponents of ID and/or creationism. I've even known people who switched from atheism to Christianity once they realized that, in all their studies, random, unguided evolution could most definitely not explain the formation of what we see."
Christianity 'suddenly helped them realize' it? Or is this a philosophical change that make them not want to accept it? Christian version of theistic evolution as explained in the article above is a good example of what most of the catholic or christian scientists I know believe regarding evolution (again- a separate principle though.)

"Ah, the "proper" research. I see. Again, the rest of us have been improperly educated."
I feel that when I did the proper research (MEANING WHEN I ACTUALLY TOOK THE TIME AND RESEARCHED IT FOR MYSELF... I WOULD CONSIDER THAT THE PROPER WAY TO APPROACH THINGS) I came to a different conclusion. That's how I did it. You guys want to interpret me as being condescending, I'm convinced. Everything I post that trys to connect to people makes them think I'm talking down to them, when I try to correct what I think is wrong, I'm condescending. I think the whole point of debate is pointing out what parts of peoples arguments are wrong. I never knew that would be so offensive to you all.

"From what I've read, it looks like the jury is still out on this. But maybe that particular jury just didn't do the "proper research.""
Why don't you know me where the jury is still out on that link I gave you then.

"Huh? I was referring to the site...it appeared to be an educator's site for teaching science in the public school."
Ah, okay, I thought you were insulting me.

"And I don't trust in a "religion.""

You don't look up to your religious leaders and trust they educate well? Ouch.

"don't consider theistic evolution to be a "Christian" viewpoint, but ok."
Okay, then..

"I didn't say a thing about changing fundamentals of science."
If you want to put ID in the classroom, you are violating metholodogical naturalism. That's a fundamental of science.


"I said it is illogical to think that philosophical thought and scientific thought will ALWAYS be wholly separate. Meaning, philosophical viewpoints often find their way into scientific research."
And I said that although in human nature that's true, we try our best to keep them as separate as possible. By setting guidelines, like methodological naturalism and the scientific method.


"If you do not believe in the fall of man, the redemption of Christ, and in the words of Christ, are you a believer? Christ taught about the special creation of man and the Genesis flood."
My thoughts are very similar to the Vatican article and I linked it because I've gone into it at length before and they explain it much better than I can. So if you are interested, read it.

"We cannot live by cut-and-paste, pick-and-choose Christianity. I hope that you agree."
Do you think Catholicism is cut and past Christianity?


"And yet amazingly, they treat it as one, and it is NOT to be questioned or debated."
Says who. I've been taught many criticisms of Darwinian evolution, many of which make up modern evolutionary theory today. There are some proposed mechanism for things that haven't been fully accepted yet, and they teach those too.
So, I think you are wrong.

"Well goody. I guess I'll just wait for the day that the atheistic, arrogant evolutionists are forced to acknowledge their errors. (Will it be a cold day in Hell?)"

I guess I'll be looking forward to it.

Bethany, sorry if you felt I was talking down to you when I said I thoguht you were wrong. But I think when you read the posts I have been very cordial to you and tried to answer your questions to their fullest extent regardless of how frustrating it might have been. You can believe I was talking down to you. I think I was politely debating. But if you really don't want to talk anymore I'll take my terrible condescending ass out of here and you'll never have to address my terrible, awful, criticisms of your arguments, ever again.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 5:13 PM


"Why don't you know me "

lol show**

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 5:28 PM


"No, macroevolution is not an observable process. Microevolution is. The implications of macroevolution are disturbing and I don't believe they are solidly supported."
But you haven't given me evidence to the contrary.
****************************

Now I have to do your research for you?
Seriously, though...if I could find the research papers amongst the piles of things in my basement storage, I'd be happy to give you the sources. I just don't have them...including the one I'd really like to find on the separation of church and state-that one really hacked my professor off, and she sent me marching to the library because she refused to believe that "separation of church and state" was not listed as such in the Declaration or the Constitution. She accused me of lying. :D Ah, fun times. (The librarian and I looked for a very long time. Nope, not there. Duh!)

"and they are continually amending their living, breathing "theory" when the evidence doesn't fit their previous version of the theory."
Well yeah, isn't that kind of the point of science? To modify what we once thought if what we observe contradicts it? Now you are condemning us for it?
***********************************

Hmm...so punctuated equilibria/rapid evolution was introduced when they couldn't find intermediary forms...because there was PROOF of it occurring?


"I *think* I'm speaking of something different here, unless I'm not understanding you correctly...I'm speaking about macroevolution in the sense of change from one KIND of animal to another."
What is a "kind"? Speak in terms we can test.
***************************************

Pretty sure I clarified that in my elaboration, y'know...felines, canines, and so forth. Perhaps it's the Family that I'm thinking of as a "kind."


"I just believe that if it happens enough to reproductively isolate organisms, and we have fossil and paleontological evidence, it's perfectly reasonable that it happens on a grander scale. It just takes time.
*************************************

And THAT is where you are assuming, in your opinion, "reasonable" things. And of course, with the magical "time" factor, voila!
I'm suggesting that it may not be as reasonable of an assumption as you think it is. DO you really have paleontological evidence? I'd think they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and all debate between ID and/or creationists would be over, finished. That isn't the case, though.

"You've "been there?" Where, at my point of sheer propagandized, non-classroom ignorance?"
I've been at the ID thing, and have done the research. JESUS CHRIST. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm trying to be nice and connect with you. I have been there.
********************************

Well, I'm glad to know that the Catholic/Christian and "nice" way of doing things involves taking the Lord's precious name in vain.


"I've already told you that I did research this, sat through ALL the biology and physiology courses (yes, in a classroom), went to public school, etc. The more I learned about evolution from wholly secular (read NON-ID) sources, the more holes I found."
I'd just like to see those holes.
*****************************************

Maybe you have to actually look at things a different way in order to see them.


"I hadn't even heard about ID or creationism until years later."
That's too bad. It might have been because it isn't science. (I'm not saying it's not right [obviously I don't think so, but all philosophical ideas are in the same realm], I'm just saying it's not science.)
*********************************

Nah, it's because I am the product of public school. :D

"When I finally did my college papers and research, I purposely did NOT use creationist or ID sources, I used sources by the macro-evolution proponents themselves."
Like what?
***************************************

Like I said, if I could dig them out, I would. You gonna dis the writings of people like Gould? Because I'm pretty sure I had one of his books in there, since he's so well-known in that arena. Or are you just thinking perhaps I was too stupid to REALLY understand what they were writing, so that if you could just explain the concepts to me, I could be enlightened? :D


"You're right, I did assume that. However, I say again that it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to completely exclude one's philosophical viewpoints from interpretation of the scientific evidence."
That may be true- for the human person. It's in our nature to bring philosophical viewpoints on everything.
*****************************

So you freely admit that perhaps an atheistic worldview might have somehow influenced evolutionary theory?

"In your non-professional opinion."
Yeah. Pretty much most of this conversation has to do with opinion, right?
************************************

The emphasis was on "non-professional." I'll take the word of someone with a PhD who happens to be an ID proponent over someone who doesn't yet have their degree.


"Some brilliant scientists have arrived at the conclusion that ID is a very strong theory."
I have looked into this, and I think most of their claims are invalid. "MY OWN UNPROFESSIONAL OPINION"
*************************************

It's your right to do that. But I thought you told me that true research really happened in the CLASSROOM, and that I couldn't do "my own research." Which is it? You're allowed to do your own research but I'm not?

"Some of our most brilliant scientists throughout history have been proponents of ID and/or creationism. I've even known people who switched from atheism to Christianity once they realized that, in all their studies, random, unguided evolution could most definitely not explain the formation of what we see."
Christianity 'suddenly helped them realize' it? Or is this a philosophical change that make them not want to accept it?
**************************************

No, reread my comment. That is not at all what I said. They bought into atheism and macro-evolution for a long time until they researched it extensively and found that their beliefs were unfounded and unreasonable, which led them to admit that perhaps they had been misled. They became open to Christianity after this. And yes, I'm talking about intelligent, college-educated people.

"Ah, the "proper" research. I see. Again, the rest of us have been improperly educated."
I feel that when I did the proper research (MEANING WHEN I ACTUALLY TOOK THE TIME AND RESEARCHED IT FOR MYSELF... I WOULD CONSIDER THAT THE PROPER WAY TO APPROACH THINGS) **************

But, PIP, that's not at all what you said earlier. You said that the only way one could really research this had to be in a classroom (presumably under the leadership of a professor).

Everything I post that trys to connect to people makes them think I'm talking down to them, when I try to correct what I think is wrong, I'm condescending. I think the whole point of debate is pointing out what parts of peoples arguments are wrong. I never knew that would be so offensive to you all.
***********************************

It's not the fact that you're pointing out what you disagree with, it's saying things like this: "I believe some of what you have been saying reflects some pro-ID propaganda that is misleading but easily believable. I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was just warning you that it's important to pay attention to the sources. I used to be an ID too, you know. I've been there."

That is the problem...you've said that what we believe is "easily believable" but that we needed to be "warned" to "pay attention to the sources" of our information, followed up by saying you "used to be" like us. Meaning, you USED to believe easily believable things, but that now you pay attention to the sources, while we're still "in the dark" on all of this. Can you really not see how that is condescending, even if you didn't mean for it to be? (And I do believe you when you say you didn't do it intentionally.)

"And I don't trust in a "religion.""

You don't look up to your religious leaders and trust they educate well? Ouch.
****************************************

I educate myself. The Bible happens to be available to the masses now and is not held captive by anyone in authority. Imagine that! We can actually READ it for OURSELVES!! :) :)

"I didn't say a thing about changing fundamentals of science."
If you want to put ID in the classroom, you are violating metholodogical naturalism. That's a fundamental of science.
************************************
I know that we can teach biology and other sciences without leaning so heavily on evolution.


And I said that although in human nature that's true, we try our best to keep them as separate as possible. By setting guidelines, like methodological naturalism and the scientific method.
********************************

How well do ya think men like Dawkins are doing with that? Dawkins, who looks down his nose at "those religious nuts."


"We cannot live by cut-and-paste, pick-and-choose Christianity. I hope that you agree."
Do you think Catholicism is cut and past Christianity?
**************************************
Well, for me, that's a loaded question. But I think you know that. I am not Catholic. I appreciate many of the tenets of the Catholic faith, but if I agreed with all of it, well...I would convert to Catholicism. ;) I had a Catholic friend tell me once that her faith was based on Scripture, divine revelation, and the teachings of the Church. She then said, "Yours is based on Scripture alone." I agreed. My beliefs are based on the Bible. Period.

"And yet amazingly, they treat it as one, and it is NOT to be questioned or debated."
Says who. I've been taught many criticisms of Darwinian evolution, many of which make up modern evolutionary theory today.
*****************************************

I'm not speaking only of Darwinian evolution, and we do NOT debate evolution in public schools...they don't want to teach other possible "theories" remember? Because they're too "philosophical." As if evolutionary theory is squeaky clean and free of philosophy! HA!


Ok, I think I'm done now. :D Gotta go have family time for a bit.

Posted by: Kel at September 4, 2008 8:45 PM


OK, That's all hard to follow....

Posted by: Janet at September 4, 2008 9:56 PM


How could anybody possibly question the sound science that we are nothing more than the scatterings of a black hole that imploded upon itself ..... pip, you fail to see the difference between sci-fi and science.

Posted by: truthseeker at September 4, 2008 10:55 PM


"Seriously, though...if I could find the research papers amongst the piles of things in my basement storage, I'd be happy to give you the sources. I just don't have them...including the one I'd really like to find on the separation of church and state-that one really hacked my professor off, and she sent me marching to the library because she refused to believe that "separation of church and state" was not listed as such in the Declaration or the Constitution. She accused me of lying. :D Ah, fun times. (The librarian and I looked for a very long time. Nope, not there. Duh!)'
LOL I couldn't tell you about that- separation of church and state is not necessarily the principle I'm trying to discuss although it does shape the way we categorize. It's more of an academic standards thing, here. That we have set the standards for scientific inquiry, and it's been working, so its important to know the difference between what we classify as science and philosophy.
I haven't seen evidence to the contrary- so I am just asking if you have definitive evidence I'd like to see it.


"Hmm...so punctuated equilibria/rapid evolution was introduced when they couldn't find intermediary forms...because there was PROOF of it occurring?"
It wasn't introduced b/c there was a lack of intermediary forms, it was introduced because there were patterns in the geologic column that wasn't consistent with Darwin's idea of a constant gradual change. It is still a form of gradualism, it is just saying that most 'gradual changes' are not enough to be directly observable within the fossils in the geographic column between generations. Here is the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions

"Pretty sure I clarified that in my elaboration, y'know...felines, canines, and so forth. Perhaps it's the Family that I'm thinking of as a "kind."
Okay families. The cat and dog families diverged quite awhile ago but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Let me dig up a website. (I don't want to tip off moderator mode so I'll post parts of the sites)
catsanddogspa.com/evolutionofthedog.html
idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm
I just ask for clarification b/c under the system there are lots of groups, and 'kind' isn't one of them, so I want us to talk about something on its own level.

"And THAT is where you are assuming, in your opinion, "reasonable" things."
I have been reading a lot of history today, and constantly thinking about the amount of skepticism that people have levied against science due to their opposition to evolution theory. I don't think most of what we think happened in history would stand that test.
But yeah, anyway, logical conclusions...

"And of course, with the magical "time" factor, voila!"
Well time does factor into a lot of things. Time is a big part of life, don't you think? I wouldn't say time doesn't play a large factor in how we develop.


"I'm suggesting that it may not be as reasonable of an assumption as you think it is."
Why not?

"DO you really have paleontological evidence? I'd think they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and all debate between ID and/or creationists would be over, finished."
Well we have, and you would think, but since IDs/creationists tend to think of this as a war of ideologies, nothing we ever come up with convinces anyone.
I linked some vids while back that went into great detail about human paleontological forms..I can try to find it if you want to watch it.

"That isn't the case, though."
Back that statement up.

"Well, I'm glad to know that the Catholic/Christian and "nice" way of doing things involves taking the Lord's precious name in vain."
Said in frustration. Uh oh, guess it means I'm a bad Christian again, I'm running straight for hell.


"Maybe you have to actually look at things a different way in order to see them."
...through the literal interpretation of the bible, you mean?

"Like I said, if I could dig them out, I would. You gonna dis the writings of people like Gould? Because I'm pretty sure I had one of his books in there, since he's so well-known in that arena. Or are you just thinking perhaps I was too stupid to REALLY understand what they were writing, so that if you could just explain the concepts to me, I could be enlightened? :D"
Huh? Gould believes in evolution..I don't see how you could use his writings to the contrary.

"So you freely admit that perhaps an atheistic worldview might have somehow influenced evolutionary theory?"
No I admit that an atheistic worldview takes advantage of evolutionary theory..but that's a separate issue: ontological v. methodological naturalism. Many Christians have accepted evolutionary theory. The theory is not the problem.


"The emphasis was on "non-professional." I'll take the word of someone with a PhD who happens to be an ID proponent over someone who doesn't yet have their degree."
So you won't listen to the vast majority of scientists who have their PhDs and are not ID proponents? Because when I study the arguments I don't make anything up-I don't do original research at this point. I simply look at what other people have done.

"It's your right to do that. But I thought you told me that true research really happened in the CLASSROOM, and that I couldn't do "my own research." Which is it? You're allowed to do your own research but I'm not?"
Eh? I asked you (when you got offended) to take a look at some other sources because I questioned some of yours. So I didn't say you couldn't do your own research. I just said in my studies and independent research I simply accept, with the majority of the scientific community, the theory of evolution.
But again I'll meet you half-way! You can believe in ID, I won't try to change your mind...you just have to admit it's not science and teach it in the right classroom. That's it. And hey, if you don't think that evolution is up to scientific standards, propose something else (that can be falsified).


"No, reread my comment. That is not at all what I said. They bought into atheism and macro-evolution for a long time until they researched it extensively and found that their beliefs were unfounded and unreasonable, which led them to admit that perhaps they had been misled. They became open to Christianity after this. And yes, I'm talking about intelligent, college-educated people."
Still more were guided towards Christianity by the very brilliance of evolution...Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are some good examples.

"But, PIP, that's not at all what you said earlier. You said that the only way one could really research this had to be in a classroom (presumably under the leadership of a professor)."
No I said sometimes it is the best way to get a good look at things. Taking a whole class over evolution gets into the nitty gritty- not just the standard literature- and it has most definitely helped me understand its complexity within the simplicity of its principles. It's pretty brilliant. I have no problems giving God the credit.

"That is the problem...you've said that what we believe is "easily believable" but that we needed to be "warned" to "pay attention to the sources" of our information, followed up by saying you "used to be" like us."
That's what I think. I think that I believed ID/creationism easily because on the surface it seemed more 'logical.' But spending more time learning the hard science, the nuts and bolts, has really helped me learn more about God's mechanism.

"Meaning, you USED to believe easily believable things, but that now you pay attention to the sources"
Yeah, but I get mislead on sources, still, because many times scientific documents aren't readily available for mass viewing by the public, when it really does need to be more accessible, imo. Evolution's champions are often loud atheists, and are giving it a bad name in the religious community, thank God for people like Kenneth Miller!

"while we're still "in the dark" on all of this."
Well I believe you are wrong. Looking back it looked a bit condescending, but it was probably because the discussion got a bit frustrating. My real intention was to say, I think you are wrong and I question your sources of information (the sources of information are mainly what I wanted to label as misguiding). Often any creationist/ID sources have done very little independent research, for example.

"I educate myself. The Bible happens to be available to the masses now and is not held captive by anyone in authority. Imagine that! We can actually READ it for OURSELVES!! :) :)"

Ah, but you do listen to other people to help you interpret it, no? Like...a teacher? Preacher? etc? What else do you go to church to do?

"I know that we can teach biology and other sciences without leaning so heavily on evolution."
Other sciences, maybe, but biology, not really. As I said earlier, nothing else can explain these patterns to date. Take away evolution (without evidence to the contrary), and you have a set of data with no interpretation. You can say look! Human and Chimp DNA are almost 99% similar! But with no natural explanation for it being that way.


"How well do ya think men like Dawkins are doing with that? Dawkins, who looks down his nose at "those religious nuts.""
Honestly I think science needs some new PR reps ;)
As I said above, people like Dawkins are brilliant scientists, but then they also have this outspoken atheist position, and without proper dialogue it's hard to separate this in peoples' minds. I think people like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins should get just as much attention if not more, since athiests only comprise a small proportion of our population, and we want to really educate most of our population, being so behind in the sciences and all...

"Well, for me, that's a loaded question. But I think you know that. I am not Catholic. I appreciate many of the tenets of the Catholic faith, but if I agreed with all of it, well...I would convert to Catholicism. ;)"

You can disagree while still recognizing them as a valid form of Christianity. Most protestant denominations accopmlish that well.


"I'm not speaking only of Darwinian evolution, and we do NOT debate evolution in public schools"
Because evolution debate shouldn't be between public schools, it happens in the academic arena between qualified scientists, and YES, many scientists disagree on different things, limitations, etc. of evolution..when a strong stance can be taken, that in turn gets taught to students. We don't debate 2 paleontological findings in public high schools. Scientists that know their stuff work on it, then after something has been concluded we teach about it in our classes (unless we mention it and say they are debating).

"...they don't want to teach other possible "theories" remember?"
There are many disagreements about specific things like mutations (ex: neutral theory? near-neutrality?) so yes those still-debated scientific theories are discussed, quite readily, with the shortcomings and evidence for those theories.

"Because they're too "philosophical." As if evolutionary theory is squeaky clean and free of philosophy! HA!"
Well, it's hard to fashion a falsfiable testable theory over a worldview. Just admit that you are directly inserting a philosophy into the science classroom. I readily admit that evolution raises questions (that are mentioned but studied elsewhere), but it doesn't mean that evolution itself is a worldview.


"Ok, I think I'm done now. :D Gotta go have family time for a bit."
Have fun!

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 4, 2008 11:57 PM


Actually, to add something,

I don't want to give the perception that b/c I don't agree with you on the mechanisms then it 'automatically makes it not science.' In fact, I think any serious study of the supernatural needs to be studied in classrooms devoted to that study (and sure it should be given equal time), and same with science (defined through the method and methodological naturalism). To treat ID as a scientific theory ultimately does God a disservice in my opinion, because you are applying a worldview/value judgement on a scientific theory (no no in science) and propose that God can be studied and described scientifically. But he is above and beyond that!
Isn't the whole point of faith the fact that God lets the natural world be the natural world, therefore you must rely on 'faith' to believe in Him? By putting God in an ID 'box' (ie. limiting what you think about nature) you are limiting him, whereas the constant revision and discovery in the natural world only testify to God's ability to set these patterns in motion. I'm just trying to help you understand how, although to us, this concept is inseparable, we should know the limits on what we can independently study, or else we might be talking about putting a damper on scientific study.
My 2 cents.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2008 12:49 AM


"It is still a form of gradualism, it is just saying that most 'gradual changes' are not enough to be directly observable within the fossils in the geographic column between generations. Here is the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions
***************************************

"Not enough to be directly observable." Interesting. So...to keep the sacred theory in tact, we must come up with a "twist." Clever. Out there, but clever.

"Pretty sure I clarified that in my elaboration, y'know...felines, canines, and so forth. Perhaps it's the Family that I'm thinking of as a "kind."
Okay families. The cat and dog families diverged quite awhile ago but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Let me dig up a website. (I don't want to tip off moderator mode so I'll post parts of the sites)
catsanddogspa.com/evolutionofthedog.html
idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm
**************************************
Show me an intermediary form that's been found in the fossil record and not an artist's representation based on the find of one single tooth or something of that sort. I'd like to see it.

"And of course, with the magical "time" factor, voila!"
Well time does factor into a lot of things. Time is a big part of life, don't you think? I wouldn't say time doesn't play a large factor in how we develop.
*************************************

And without millions and billions of years, macroevolution is dead in the paramecium-filled waters.

"I'm suggesting that it may not be as reasonable of an assumption as you think it is."
Why not?
*********************************

Because you don't have any fossil proof of it.

"DO you really have paleontological evidence? I'd think they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and all debate between ID and/or creationists would be over, finished."
Well we have, and you would think, but since IDs/creationists tend to think of this as a war of ideologies, nothing we ever come up with convinces anyone.
*****************************************
I read the news and I like to read stories of interest on this topic. Haven't seen anything that shows paleontological evidence that absolutely supports macroevolution. So which rooftops are they shouting from?? Academia? You'd think they'd want to educate the ignorant masses.

I linked some vids while back that went into great detail about human paleontological forms..I can try to find it if you want to watch it.
****************************

Sure, why not.

"That isn't the case, though."
Back that statement up.
*******************************

What, about the debate not being finished?? I really have to back that statement up? Aren't people still debating it? I'm confused.

"Well, I'm glad to know that the Catholic/Christian and "nice" way of doing things involves taking the Lord's precious name in vain."
Said in frustration. Uh oh, guess it means I'm a bad Christian again, I'm running straight for hell.
*************************************

Actually, it was POSTED in frustration. You have a delete key. Did I say you were running straight for hell? Did I say you were a bad Christian? I don't believe I said anything about you being Christian or hellbound. I did, however, point you to a page that lists verses regarding the things that Jesus Christ taught about His creation. If you do not agree with those things, then you are questioning the authority of Christ, God incarnate. What I have to say really matters little, but what He said...pretty important, don't you think?

"Maybe you have to actually look at things a different way in order to see them."
...through the literal interpretation of the bible, you mean?
*************************************

Well, let's see...you don't believe in Creation, so you probably don't believe the words of Christ regarding it, so...how ARE you interpreting the Bible, exactly??

"Like I said, if I could dig them out, I would. You gonna dis the writings of people like Gould? Because I'm pretty sure I had one of his books in there, since he's so well-known in that arena. Or are you just thinking perhaps I was too stupid to REALLY understand what they were writing, so that if you could just explain the concepts to me, I could be enlightened? :D"
Huh? Gould believes in evolution..I don't see how you could use his writings to the contrary.
****************************************

Yes, that's what I said. I used evolutionist sources. I compared and contrasted the various theories and what he and others wrote. The fact that he believes in evolution is precisely why the source was used. I can't go writing a paper using creationist sources at a secular college, now can I? ;) I knew that the argument would be "well, your sources are flawed." So, I just eliminated that argument from the get-go.

"So you freely admit that perhaps an atheistic worldview might have somehow influenced evolutionary theory?"
No I admit that an atheistic worldview takes advantage of evolutionary theory.
*******************************************

What I meant was, isn't it possible that an atheistic worldview of a researcher could possibly skew the interpretation of the evidence? I don't think you're being honest if you say no.

"Many Christians have accepted evolutionary theory. The theory is not the problem."
****************************************

Yeah, the problem is that a lot of "Christians" don't really believe Scripture, but have created a god of their own design. They don't really read their Bible or believe what it says. And that is their right as a being with free will.
The book of Genesis really sets a foundation for the whole of Scripture...the fall of man (which affected the whole of creation and brought death into the world), the promised Messiah, etc.

"So you won't listen to the vast majority of scientists who have their PhDs and are not ID proponents? Because when I study the arguments I don't make anything up-I don't do original research at this point. I simply look at what other people have done."
*****************************************

I don't listen to the vast majority of people on this earth, either, so I don't know why that should surprise you. My views aren't exactly PC or mainstream in any sense. :D

Eh? I asked you (when you got offended) to take a look at some other sources because I questioned some of yours. So I didn't say you couldn't do your own research. I just said in my studies and independent research I simply accept, with the majority of the scientific community, the theory of evolution.
********************************************

Actually, what you said was: "I'm not saying you haven't done research, just saying in some ways research has mislead you-trust me, often the best way to learn this is in the classroom."

But again I'll meet you half-way! You can believe in ID, I won't try to change your mind...you just have to admit it's not science and teach it in the right classroom. That's it. And hey, if you don't think that evolution is up to scientific standards, propose something else (that can be falsified).
************************************

Then I'd say creation science would be more "falsifiable" than the ID theory.

Still more were guided towards Christianity by the very brilliance of evolution...Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are some good examples.
***********************************

And these are extremely rare cases, as you later stated. What have you seen more of in your pursuit of higher education-a welcoming spirit toward faith, or one of disdain?


That's what I think. I think that I believed ID/creationism easily because on the surface it seemed more 'logical.' But spending more time learning the hard science, the nuts and bolts, has really helped me learn more about God's mechanism.
***************************************

But you just finished saying how "simple" evolutionary principles are. Simple, yet brilliant. Now you're saying that ID seems more logical, but...what? It's not simple? You have confused me.

Evolution's champions are often loud atheists, and are giving it a bad name in the religious community, thank God for people like Kenneth Miller!
************************************

So, the champions of evolution, doing much of the research, are often loud atheists? And yet their worldviews don't ever figure in to interpretation of the evidence? Not at all?? Amazing!

Often any creationist/ID sources have done very little independent research, for example.
**************************************

What do you mean by "independent research?" And what constitutes "very little?"

"Ah, but you do listen to other people to help you interpret it, no? Like...a teacher? Preacher? etc? What else do you go to church to do?"
***********************************

LOL-I go to church to fellowship with other believers. I do not go to hear someone give me their own personal interpretation of Scripture, no. Scripture, taken in context, interprets Scripture. I can research the meanings in Greek and Hebrew all by my little self, right here online! :D Christ is the Head of His Church, not my pastor or anyone else's pastor. (I realize that Catholics may differ with me on this.)

"I know that we can teach biology and other sciences without leaning so heavily on evolution."
Other sciences, maybe, but biology, not really. As I said earlier, nothing else can explain these patterns to date. Take away evolution (without evidence to the contrary), and you have a set of data with no interpretation. You can say look! Human and Chimp DNA are almost 99% similar! But with no natural explanation for it being that way.
******************************************

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070


You can disagree while still recognizing them as a valid form of Christianity. Most protestant denominations accopmlish that well.
******************************************

I know some Catholics who are Christians, but not all. I know some Protestants who are Christians, but not all.

Because evolution debate shouldn't be between public schools, it happens in the academic arena between qualified scientists, and YES, many scientists disagree on different things, limitations, etc. of evolution..when a strong stance can be taken, that in turn gets taught to students. We don't debate 2 paleontological findings in public high schools. Scientists that know their stuff work on it, then after something has been concluded we teach about it in our classes (unless we mention it and say they are debating).
****************************

When has THAT happened? I don't recall ever being told "Oh, there is a debate over this or that in evolutionary theory." Students are taught these things as if they are FACT, and there is rarely a mention that "some people don't believe this" unless it is done in a derogatory, upturned nose, "they're stupid" sort of manner.

"Because they're too "philosophical." As if evolutionary theory is squeaky clean and free of philosophy! HA!"
Well, it's hard to fashion a falsfiable testable theory over a worldview. Just admit that you are directly inserting a philosophy into the science classroom. I readily admit that evolution raises questions (that are mentioned but studied elsewhere), but it doesn't mean that evolution itself is a worldview.
************************************

Okay, so where are all the philosophy classes in which to debate and discuss this topic? I think many people would welcome such an option, and many students of faith would, especially. So, why no classes in which to debate this? Instead, all we receive is mocking. If people of faith pulled their kids out of school over something like this, the public schools wouldn't have too many students left. Students of faith really should have a voice in academia.

I'm zonked and I probably am not making any sense! Need sleep. Goodnight.

Posted by: Kel at September 5, 2008 1:12 AM


""Not enough to be directly observable." Interesting. So...to keep the sacred theory in tact, we must come up with a "twist." Clever. Out there, but clever."
You are taking it out of context. Wouldn't you say that if animals gradually change, that not all of them will show up in fossils? Like a change in color, or a change in reproductive patterns?


"Show me an intermediary form that's been found in the fossil record and not an artist's representation based on the find of one single tooth or something of that sort. I'd like to see it."
Did you read those webpages?

"And without millions and billions of years, macroevolution is dead in the paramecium-filled waters."
Well whenwe are talking about all of these creatures coming from a single organism (or set of organisms), I'd say it will take awhile, don't you?

"Because you don't have any fossil proof of it."
We literally have tons of transitional fossils. You are gonna have to back that statement up.


"I read the news and I like to read stories of interest on this topic. Haven't seen anything that shows paleontological evidence that absolutely supports macroevolution. So which rooftops are they shouting from?? Academia? You'd think they'd want to educate the ignorant masses."
National Geographic has articles sometimes. But I agree, science needs some better PR reps.


"Sure, why not."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8
take a look


"What, about the debate not being finished?? I really have to back that statement up? Aren't people still debating it? I'm confused."
In academia it's pretty much settled. You are saying it's not, so the burden of proof is on you

"Actually, it was POSTED in frustration. You have a delete key. Did I say you were running straight for hell?"
You sort of implied it when you said 'evolutionists' were going there..


"Well, let's see...you don't believe in Creation, so you probably don't believe the words of Christ regarding it, so...how ARE you interpreting the Bible, exactly??"
As I've said before, go read that Vatican document, they say it better than I could.


"Yes, that's what I said. I used evolutionist sources. I compared and contrasted the various theories and what he and others wrote. The fact that he believes in evolution is precisely why the source was used. I can't go writing a paper using creationist sources at a secular college, now can I? ;) I knew that the argument would be "well, your sources are flawed." So, I just eliminated that argument from the get-go."
Right. I can't see what you would quote from him about it however to prove your point, is what I'm saying.


"What I meant was, isn't it possible that an atheistic worldview of a researcher could possibly skew the interpretation of the evidence? I don't think you're being honest if you say no."
We all have human bias, but we have a system of review so we can eliminate it as soon as possible. The fact that it is accepted by virtually all of academia (including many Christians) suggests a grand atheist conspiracy..

"Yeah, the problem is that a lot of "Christians" don't really believe Scripture, but have created a god of their own design."
No they believe in a different interpretation of Scripture.
There you go, saying they are not really Christians...

"Actually, what you said was: "I'm not saying you haven't done research, just saying in some ways research has mislead you-trust me, often the best way to learn this is in the classroom."
Yes, I think independent research is good, but I think your sources are misleading. I also think that classes, like I've explained before, go more indepth and provide a deeper understanding. Just my thoughts. No disrespect intended.

"Then I'd say creation science would be more "falsifiable" than the ID theory."
In what way?

"And these are extremely rare cases, as you later stated."
Not rare in general, just due to loudness, basically.

"What have you seen more of in your pursuit of higher education-a welcoming spirit toward faith, or one of disdain?"
Well teachers don't really talk about it in the classroom. However, I know there are people of all faiths in our department.

"But you just finished saying how "simple" evolutionary principles are."
Yes, but behind those logical principles are science, that is not exactly non-scientist-friendly.

"Simple, yet brilliant."
Brilliant, yes.

"Now you're saying that ID seems more logical, but...what? It's not simple? You have confused me."
To most people on the surface ID seems more logical (argument of incredulity). But that doesn't mean it is.

"So, the champions of evolution, doing much of the research, are often loud atheists?"
The champions of evolution to the public. Don't twist my words. I'm talking about the ability to reach out to people. As I've said before, people of all faiths work on the theory of evolution (also known as biologists).

"What do you mean by "independent research?" And what constitutes "very little?"
You know, peer reviewed research. I'd like to see a reviewed, scientific paper, from a creationist. Haven't found one yet.

"LOL-I go to church to fellowship with other believers. I do not go to hear someone give me their own personal interpretation of Scripture, no."
I guess we have a misunderstanding, then. I usually go to learn.


"http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp"
Uh oh, only 95%?? that's a huge difference..

Rest later!

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2008 9:31 AM


To treat ID as a scientific theory ultimately does God a disservice in my opinion, because you are applying a worldview/value judgement on a scientific theory (no no in science) and propose that God can be studied and described scientifically. But he is above and beyond that!
Isn't the whole point of faith the fact that God lets the natural world be the natural world, therefore you must rely on 'faith' to believe in Him? By putting God in an ID 'box' (ie. limiting what you think about nature) you are limiting him...
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2008 12:49 AM
******************************************

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

"Haven't you read," he (Jesus) replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19:4-6

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." Matthew 24:37-39

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." Genesis 7:11-23

"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" John 3:12

Posted by: Kel at September 5, 2008 9:39 AM


"When has THAT happened? I don't recall ever being told "Oh, there is a debate over this or that in evolutionary theory."
Wow. It is a standard part of our study in genetics, molecular biology, evolution, microbiology, etc. There are some details or mechanisms that are still not fully accepted. As I said, neutral theory is one. The idea of symbiosis in mitochondrial/chloroplast development is widely accepted but still not by the entire community and our books tell us that.

"Students are taught these things as if they are FACT"
Theory is not fact; theory explains facts. Although it is a fact that things evolve, the theory of evolution explains that fact. Just like the theory of gravity explains the patterns we see in regard to gravity. Whoever teaches it otherwise is wrong.

"and there is rarely a mention that "some people don't believe this" unless it is done in a derogatory, upturned nose, "they're stupid" sort of manner."
From who?

"Okay, so where are all the philosophy classes in which to debate and discuss this topic?"
I know we discuss it in Philosophy 100 here, and there are also classes like "science and religion", etc. Or it can be taught in a world religions course, or a political studies course, or something like that.

"I think many people would welcome such an option, and many students of faith would, especially."
If you are underwhelmed with options in schools for these opportunities, perhaps the best route would be to fight for those options..then the debate would be over!

"So, why no classes in which to debate this?"
Again- we have them- I guess it depends on your school..

"Students of faith really should have a voice in academia."
Why yes they should. I just want to see their voices about certain subjects remain within the confines of that subject.

"I'm zonked and I probably am not making any sense! Need sleep. Goodnight."

No worries!

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2008 11:41 AM


Kel, I agree God created us- I just think he used a different mechanism. So, those verses don't disagree with my view.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2008 11:43 AM


PIP, you believe in Noah's flood? (Do your college profs know about this? Don't tell them, shhh! :D)

You believe Romans 1:20?
If evolution is the mechanism and was "hidden" from human reason for so very, very long, then how is it that God could be "clearly seen and understood from what has been made" back in the Apostle Paul's day and well before? By comparison with biblical history, evolution is a pretty "new" concept.

All of my questions about academia that you answered relate to you as a college student, not one who is in public high school. Of course you can go more in depth in college courses, but by that time, you've already gotten an earful of evolutionary drivel with ZERO debate in high school.

"As I said, neutral theory is one. The idea of symbiosis in mitochondrial/chloroplast development is widely accepted but still not by the entire community and our books tell us that."

Oh, sure, yeah, uh huh...I learned about THAT in my public high school biology class! Not.

The derogatory comments and "upturned noses" to which I was referring come from high school and college teachers alike.

"So, those verses don't disagree with my view."
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2008 11:43 AM
***********************************

Seriously...was this what you meant to say? Because I don't look to verses to agree with my own views, my views are formed because of Scripture.

Posted by: Kel at September 5, 2008 2:04 PM


"PIP, you believe in Noah's flood? (Do your college profs know about this? Don't tell them, shhh! :D)"
Yes, but I do think it was a local flood, as there are other stories from that part of the world that are simliar to Noah's flood (e.g. Gilgamesh)

"If evolution is the mechanism and was "hidden" from human reason for so very, very long, then how is it that God could be "clearly seen and understood from what has been made" back in the Apostle Paul's day and well before? By comparison with biblical history, evolution is a pretty "new" concept."

Yes, we can clearly see that God has made us, and that we possess the reason and faculty to be a part of His spiritual world.
The fact that He may have used evolution has no bearing over that.

"All of my questions about academia that you answered relate to you as a college student, not one who is in public high school. Of course you can go more in depth in college courses, but by that time, you've already gotten an earful of evolutionary drivel with ZERO debate in high school."
As I said, parents are welcome to lobby for classes like world religions in high school, where this issue can be discussed.

"Oh, sure, yeah, uh huh...I learned about THAT in my public high school biology class! Not."

Well you either want us to teach the general basis of the theory (which is for the most part undisputed at this point) or the people who disagree (which deal with specifics). You pick. Either way I have a feeling you'd be dissatisfied.

"The derogatory comments and "upturned noses" to which I was referring come from high school and college teachers alike."
Well I'm sorry you have met people like that.

"Seriously...was this what you meant to say? Because I don't look to verses to agree with my own views, my views are formed because of Scripture."
Generally, I believe in "faith informed by reason." Science can help us put the Bible in a better context for us to gain understanding. The ultimate purpose of the Bible is spiritual enlightenment. I don't go to the Bible to learn about math or science. I don't think God created us with a thinking mind to ignore science when we think it's inconvenient. I think Catholicism learned their lesson with Galileo, and their approach now is commendable.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 5, 2008 2:36 PM


What I find hilarious is that no one is mentioning what Obama said about his daughters if they had gotten pregnant, it would be a punishment, and he'd want them to get an abortion. What kind of father is he? I don't want someone like that to be my President. I'd be scared of what he'd do next. So why aren't the liberal nutjobs questioning his parental style. Oh, that's right. Because they feel the same way. They are even lucky to breath this air they are breathing and lucky that their parents didn't abort them. They should talk. How easy it is to make judgments, but so hard to swallow them!

Posted by: Claridy at September 5, 2008 4:16 PM


What I find hilarious is that no one is mentioning what Obama said about his daughters if they had gotten pregnant, it would be a punishment, and he'd want them to get an abortion. What kind of father is he? I don't want someone like that to be my President. I'd be scared of what he'd do next. So why aren't the liberal nutjobs questioning his parental style. Oh, that's right. Because they feel the same way. They are even lucky to breathe this air they are breathing and lucky that their parents didn't abort them. They should talk. How easy it is to make judgments, but so hard to swallow them!

Posted by: Claridy at September 5, 2008 4:16 PM


"PIP, you believe in Noah's flood? (Do your college profs know about this? Don't tell them, shhh! :D)"
Yes, but I do think it was a local flood, as there are other stories from that part of the world that are simliar to Noah's flood (e.g. Gilgamesh)
**************************************

Ok, I pretty much thought that would be your answer. Never hurts to check, though. ;) Stories like the Gilgamesh epic really are wonderful, I think, because just when people think the Bible ISN'T a history book, other sources seems to suggest that it is, and almost every culture has some sort of tale of a great flood that occurred. As the article below states: "It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends."
You can go to answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp and there's a nice article about this.
Genesis 6:13- "So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to ALL PEOPLE, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy BOTH THEM AND THE EARTH."

Genesis 7:18-20- "The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet."

See, there are too many details involved here...in the design and measurements of the ark, in the number of days accounted, even to the number of feet by which the mountains were covered. If this was merely a "localized" flood, then why is that not specified? The Bible seems to be filled with historical specificity in regards to location. It could've been said, "From the west of the city of Ur to the south, and to the north to the boundaries of name-that-city, and stretching along the River Whatzit...." :D Well, you get my drift. Why not just say so? The text doesn't seem to have any trouble doing so in other places. It's quite uniform.


"Yes, we can clearly see that God has made us, and that we possess the reason and faculty to be a part of His spiritual world.
The fact that He may have used evolution has no bearing over that."
*************************************

I disagree. Very strongly. If He used evolution, then He lied in Genesis chapters 1-3, and Jesus Christ lied about the same account.

"As I said, parents are welcome to lobby for classes like world religions in high school, where this issue can be discussed."
*****************************************
That would be great. Next time perhaps you could be clearer by not referring to college courses.

"Oh, sure, yeah, uh huh...I learned about THAT in my public high school biology class! Not."
Well you either want us to teach the general basis of the theory (which is for the most part undisputed at this point) or the people who disagree (which deal with specifics). You pick. Either way I have a feeling you'd be dissatisfied.
************************************
My comment above was going back to the fact that you started off talking about evolution being taught in public schools, and then you switched to talking about college without really informing me of that fact. Probably why my comment made no sense to you...we were talking about two different things. And REALLY? I get to PICK? Okay, I pick this: teach the general basis of the theory and do not be afraid of discussing evidence to the contrary (creation science has LOTS of data and evidence, which is different from ID theory-no doubt, you disagree). Be truthful in the fact that microevolution is observable and macroevolution is not, but has been ASSUMED by many to be true. And please, PLEASE, refrain from using misleading artists' renderings in teaching these concepts. It's very easy to visually mislead people.

Generally, I believe in "faith informed by reason." Science can help us put the Bible in a better context for us to gain understanding.
***********************************

Oh, I see where we differ here. I believe that the Bible is THE authority on life, by the Author of Life Himself. Science does not help me put the Bible in a better context, the Bible helps me to put science in a better context by knowing the Creator through His Word.

"The ultimate purpose of the Bible is spiritual enlightenment. I don't go to the Bible to learn about math or science. I don't think God created us with a thinking mind to ignore science when we think it's inconvenient. I think Catholicism learned their lesson with Galileo, and their approach now is commendable."
***************************************

Who's ignoring science? I'm quite fond of it, actually. :) I believe the Earth is God's handiwork. I don't ignore science when I think it's "inconvenient" but I do object to an ASSUMPTION (macroevolution) being taught as fact.
The Bible contains both elements of math and science. It is also historically reliable. The ultimate purpose of the Bible is not merely "spiritual enlightenment." By saying such a thing, you might as well equate it on a level with the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or any number of books regarding "spiritual enlightenment."
The Bible contains God's Law to His people, the genealogy of Christ all the way back to the first man, Adam, (Genesis 5:1 says "This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them 'man.'"), the account of the Fall of Man, the promise of the Redeemer (right there in Genesis 3:15), the accounts of Abraham (whom Muslims also count as their forefather, as they are descendants of Ishmael), the words of the prophets (which had to be proven true or according to God's Law, they were to be stoned as false prophets), poetic books such as the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon and others...God has put so many details in His Word from every genre, for everyone.

Don't you see? YOU are the one who has put the Lord God in a box by saying His Word is inaccurate and that it is merely for "spiritual enlightenment." You have put Him in a box by in essence saying "He MUST have done these things through evolution, because believing otherwise is just foolish", and I must see that the Word of God matches my 'scientific facts' in order to believe." That's fine for you, I suppose, but not for me...

I Corinthians 1:18-27 says: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

If I am to be foolish in the world's eyes, then so be it. The "world" ignores science when it is convenient for them, as in the case of abortion. They don't know the Truth when it's staring them in the face. I think I'll stick with God's unchanging Word.

Posted by: Kel at September 6, 2008 1:45 AM


"If He used evolution, then He lied in Genesis chapters 1-3, and Jesus Christ lied about the same account."

No. Read the genesis story again--and notice that God never said how he created us, just that he created us. "God made"-- doesn't this correspond with the housing metaphor mk brought up?

"Why not just say so?"
You think that human beings then would understand such a science lecture from God, considering it doesn't have the context of knowledge evolution did and that its not even important to the main idea of the creation story?

"That would be great. Next time perhaps you could be clearer by not referring to college courses."
Sorry, I was referring to college courses that could be offered in a public high school setting. Should have been clearer.

"creation science has LOTS of data and evidence, which is different from ID theory-no doubt, you disagree)."
Yes it's true. I've never seen original research that supports creationism. But, as I have linked a video with a multitude of paletontological evidence, if you want to link me to this kind of research I'd be happy to read it.

"but I do object to an ASSUMPTION (macroevolution) being taught as fact. "
I also object to a THEORY being taught as FACT because....theories are by nature not facts, they exist to explain them.
Again, this 'assumption' (theory) has so much evidence in its favor that is readily available...


" By saying such a thing, you might as well equate it on a level with the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or any number of books regarding "spiritual enlightenment.""
Well in a sense it is on the level, in the sense they are both religious texts. You can't be telling me you only believe the Bible because it has some historical accuracies? Because so does the other texts...Homer also had historical accuracies in his poems about the divine as well.
I just think it's important to see things in context. You know, like the context of those writing the Bible. Just the way I see it. You don't have to agree.

"Don't you see? YOU are the one who has put the Lord God in a box by saying His Word is inaccurate and that it is merely for "spiritual enlightenment.""
No. What do you consider the Bible to be, if not for spiritual enlightenment? If you literally consider the Bible to be a textbook, then yes, we have a fundamental disagreement on why it has been preserved and written for so long. I don't think it's because it had a few mathematical measurements in there. I think it probably has something to do with religion and spirituality...


But seriously, on this we would never agree, and I knew that, and that is why I referred you to the Vatican document. It's easy to read up on it and go "oh, okay, she sees it differently."

And really, the only thing I wanted to accomplish in our (and Bethany's) conversation is the fact that the supernatural is by nature ineligible to be a part of the scientific method (impossible to measure-unless you really think it's possible to measure God). Not that it's not true, just that its not science. That I would love your opportunity to talk about ID but just in the right context at the school. That's all- I think that is a pretty agreeable standard.

And I would probably do more explanations, but I had an accident at my party tonight, and I injured my arm kind of badly, so it really really hurts to type... gnight :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 6, 2008 4:19 AM


PIP, I'm sorry about your accident. You are in my prayers.

It seems that what we have here is something that will go in circles. I do not "classify" the Bible as a religious text only, nor a textbook. The Bible is God's Word, my handbook for life and contains wisdom for life, true accounts of actual historical events, and the amazing account of God's woven tapestry throughout the history of His people. I do not classify it in the realm of ANY other book. I suppose that's where we differ the most.

When I referred to "kinds" earlier, and you implied that it wasn't specific enough, I was referring to Genesis 1:11-13
"Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

As well as Genesis 1:20-23 "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day."

And Genesis 1:24-28 "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

I really have difficulty seeing how you have room for macroevolution in here. The Hebrew word for "kind" is "miyn" which means (quoting the Hebrew and Greek lexicon): form, species, kind, sort, family, race.
The same term is used in Leviticus chapter 11 when the "unclean food" laws were passed to God's people. Lev 11:15-19 speak of specific species of birds: hawk, raven, owl, heron, etc...and it says that any "kind ('miyn') of heron" is to be avoided. What do you take that to mean? The same Hebrew word is used in Genesis and there in Leviticus, as well as in Deuteronomy.

Anyway, feel better and enjoy your weekend.

Posted by: Kel at September 6, 2008 12:30 PM


Sorry, I forgot to link you to my lexicon entry:

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4327

Posted by: Kel at September 6, 2008 12:34 PM


Thanks for your concern, Kel :)

It's much less swollen today and I have a bigger range of motion, so I probably just got a bad bruise. Hitting the corner of a wall on the bottom of my humerus (the patch of nerves above the elbow) with over 300 lbs of weight is bound to leave a bruise or two :P

It's cool, I see we just have a difference of opinion. I'm still figuring out things religious wise, just to let you know. I grew up Catholic but I'm making sure I believe everything they believe before I label myself as one. So for now I'm sort of a free-lancer. Anyway, thanks for the great discussion, Kel. I appreciate it, really. Sorry I came off harsh, earlier, I didn't mean to, it's just easy to get frustrated when this kind of topic comes up.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 6, 2008 1:44 PM


Sorry I came off harsh, earlier, I didn't mean to, it's just easy to get frustrated when this kind of topic comes up.
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 6, 2008 1:44 PM
****************************************

Well, I'd rather debate someone else who's as passionate as I am than someone who's not. :)

PIP, we're all learning new things out every day about God and His intervention in our daily lives (or at least we should be). And if we don't ask questions, we can never learn the answers. I hope that you will read your Bible for answers that are unclear to you and that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all Truth. :)

Hang in there and stay away from WALLS! (It works for me, anyway. LOL) :D

Posted by: Kel at September 6, 2008 5:59 PM


PiP,
Sorry to hear about your injury. Get well soon! :)

Posted by: Janet at September 8, 2008 9:48 PM


Claridy @ 4:16,

You are right. Some people see pregnancy as a punishment that a woman must rid themselves of. It comes from a poor self-image.

Posted by: Janet at September 8, 2008 9:50 PM