|
Author
|
Topic: Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 93 of 179 (115158)
06-14-2004 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by Coragyps
06-14-2004 5:40 PM
|
|
Re: U.S. Constitution
So offer your opinion as to why the aclu does not file a legal challenge to the legislative and judicial branches of our federal government opening their proceedings with an acknowledgement of god.
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2004 5:40 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 6:40 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 95 of 179 (115183)
06-14-2004 9:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
06-14-2004 6:40 PM
|
|
Re: U.S. Constitution
jar writes: A lot of the religious oppression forced on the majority by the vocal Christian minority are unfortunately, simply ignored because it is just to easy to give them their way instead of listening to them whine. Oppression? What oppression. Please be specific about the oppression that you personally suffered. I don't remember being oppressed by christians, not ever, and I have lived through this same time period. jar writes: And whine is one thing they do well. Well, it would seem that they are not alone there! jar writes: This was the case back in the 50's when we let Under God be added to the Pledge and In God We Trust be added to the currency. The only ones that really suffered were us kids, we had to take time out of our studies every day to relearn the Pledge, to get used to the flow and meter of it being broken by the insertion of two words. Imagine the audacity! Children, in a learning environment, being expected to learn how to properly insert two words into an already memorized recitation. How dare they! jar writes: The money was the same thing. It was a minor anoyance to quieten a major nusance. Nothing more. Period. Wow! Good thing they didn't decide to change the colours, or the size and location of the image of the presidents that are depicted on those bills, huh? jar writes: Bills still worked at the bar or the ticket counter. Price of hot dogs stayed reasonable. Small loss but great gain. The noise abated. I guess them there christian folks evil plot to subvert our society didn't have the desired effect and we'uns showed them a thing or two! Now that is what I call some serious whining, baby.....major, hardcore whining!
Good job, Jar! Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 6:40 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2004 11:32 PM | | DarkStar has not replied | | | Message 99 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 11:41 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 100 of 179 (115238)
06-15-2004 12:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Rrhain
06-14-2004 11:19 PM
|
|
Rrhain's Deception
You should practice a little more honesty and a little less deception in your posts. You begin your post with; Rrhain writes: DarkStar responds to me: quote: Or is it your contention that "religious freedom of speech" is not protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? To which you respond; Of course it is protected. But the government is not allowed to speak on matters of god. The laws which the government passes are not allowed to be justified by "god said so." The very next line in your post reads as follows; quote:
The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country. This is not a quote from me but is actually a posted reference from an outside source, Welcome nexusjournal.org - BlueHost.com, which I am sure was made quite obvious in my post Message 87, but which you conviently ommitted from your reply. Furthermore, it is a single sentence pulled from the top of the entire paragraph that was referenced. Anyone reading your post could easily be misled to think these were my words as you make no clear distinction between my own words and those of other individuals. This is shoddy posting at best, if not an outright attempt at deception on your part. As to the separation of church and state, that is a given. Even these christians should realize this because it is taught throughout their bible. The kings and the priests were separate entities by decree. But the separation of church and state is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there is no separation of god and government so long as the people are willing to acknowledge that a bond exists between the two. One need not be a christian to understand the positive effect of having leaders with moral conviction and clarity of purpose in regards to the overall welfare of the populace. The rest of your post is filled with so much anal pablum that it beggars description. You apparently have convinced yourself, and no one else I am sure, that you are a greater authority on the constitution then are the senators, congressmen, and judges of our federal government. So much has this self deception been incorporated into your thinking that it has become quite evident to me that your level of cogitation is mediocre at best, and may even sink to the degree that logic and reason, and perhaps even reality, escape you. Initially, I had considered you worthy of continued discourse. I can see from your latest post that such consideration was unwarranted. Jeers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2004 11:19 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
Rrhain's quotes
crashfrog writes: I realize how easily one could come to this conclusion, but I personally find it rather hollow to insist that someone is trying to distort your message when your own, undistorted posts appear unchanged earlier in the thread. Upon close examination of Rrhain's posts, one can not help but notice either a deliberate lack of attention, or an inability to comprehend thoughts expressed in simple prose. As an example I offer this from Message 102Rrhain writes: DarkStar responds to me:
quote:
This is not a quote from me but is actually a posted reference from an outside source I know. But since you proffered it as an argument, it doesn't really matter. Do you not agree with it? This is the quote to which we are referring:The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country. Message 102 is a direct response to Message 100 in which I clearly state the following:As to the separation of church and state, that is a given. Even these christians should realize this because it is taught throughout their bible. The kings and the priests were separate entities by decree. But the separation of church and state is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there is no separation of god and government so long as the people are willing to acknowledge that a bond exists between the two. One need not be a christian to understand the positive effect of having leaders with moral conviction and clarity of purpose in regards to the overall welfare of the populace. How he could have read my post and then asked the question again is beyond understanding without accepting the aforementioned issues regarding Rrhain's attention to detail, or lack thereof.
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 1:49 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 107 of 179 (115396)
06-15-2004 2:45 PM
|
|
|
Traditions
It would seem that some individuals are having difficulty differentiating between the concepts of church and state, and god and government. They also seem to have a great deal of difficulty differentiating between law and tradition. In Message 105 Rrhain shows a quote from an outside source that I had posted earlier in the thread which reads as follows:The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country. To which Rrhain replies:But that's just it. It isn't the tradition of this great country. While I agree that a separation between church and state is indeed constitutional, I do not agree that a separation between god and government is. The acknowledgement of god in public life is not an establishment of religion, and therefore is not a violation of the constitution. "Establishment"
NOUN:
1a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established. 2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church. Rrhain continues:This country (and I define "this country" as the creation of the United States with the ratification of the Constitution) was founded on the separation of church and state. It is one of the defining principles of this great country. How can it be a contradiction when it is the very basis for our existence? Rrhain becomes his own contradiction because Rrhain wants to exclude the following document from our history. Normally I would choose to include the entirety of such a document but in order to crystalize in the mind of the reader the magnitude of what Rrhain would have excluded, I enclose only the first three paragraphs of said document:THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE In Congress, July 4th, 1776
The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen United States Of America When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Powerful words. Words that Rrhain would have us ignore as if they had no meaning, as if they have no bearing on the founding of this, the greatest of nations. Words that are in actuality the backbone of the founding of this, the greatest of nations. Words that will forever remind us of our beginning, and our traditions as a nation, the greatest nation the world has ever known. No, Rrhain, the citizens of this great nation should never forget these words, for to do so would be to invite the tyranny and oppression that we sought to dispose of at the first. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 113 of 179 (115458)
06-15-2004 4:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by nator
06-12-2004 9:13 PM
|
|
Re: Evolving Views
Hi schrafinator! As requested in Message 111, I reply. schrafinator writes: The evidence found in nature strongly supports random mutation combined with natural selection being the designer of life on Earth. The evidence found in nature also strongly supports design, even intelligent design. schrafinator writes: What are the predictions of design in nature, and what would falsify a finding of design?
Darkstar writes: Even the myriad of scientists who have made open statements regarding the overwhelming sense and indication of design that they see throughout the universe are not abandoning the theory of evolution for intelligent design. That's because ID isn't a scientific theory, but a philosophy. I submit for your reading pleasure;Theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Not a full listing of definitions of what constitutes a theory, but sufficient for our purposes. Now whether or not you accept that all of these definitions of the word theory can be applied to the theory of intelligent design is not for me to decide. You would have to debate that with an individual more in tune with, and having a greater understanding of, the theory of intelligent design. Personally, I would readily admit that no less than two, if not all of the above definitions meet the qualifications necessary to determine that intelligent design is indeed a theory. Whether or not you agree with my assessment is really a moot point, as I am not qualified to debate the issue of intelligent design theory with you, nor is that my purpose in being here. I have merely stated in the past that I acknowledge patterns, designs, and yes, even intelligent designs in the aspects of nature that I am able to personally observe. This should not be viewed as an endorsement of intelligent design theory. schrafinator writes: The origin of life has nothing to do with the ToE. I agree. Yet the presupposition of abiogenesis remains at the forefront of the theory of evolution even as the presupposition of a creator remains at the forefront of the theory of intelligent design. To state otherwise is both disingenuous and non sequitur. Cheers This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-15-2004 03:47 PM This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-15-2004 03:50 PM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by nator, posted 06-12-2004 9:13 PM | | nator has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 115 of 179 (115505)
06-15-2004 6:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by MrHambre
06-15-2004 5:59 PM
|
|
Re: Evolving Views
I have requested from others, but so far have not been supplied with, a viable and extensive definition and explanation of what exactly constitutes "natural selection'. Perhaps you would be able to supply me with the definition of natural selection and how it functions. Thanks! Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by MrHambre, posted 06-15-2004 5:59 PM | | MrHambre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 06-15-2004 6:56 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 117 of 179 (115549)
06-15-2004 9:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by MrHambre
06-15-2004 6:56 PM
|
|
Re: Natural Selection
Thank you for the definition you supplied in Message 116. The only other one I have available is from the dictionary, which I suppose would have sufficed.
Natural Selection
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
I am currently doing a self-imposed study on the possibilities of macro-evolution actually occuring in nature, though as yet I can not accept that this is a scientific theory due to it's inability to be observed, tested, or falsified. Two sites from which I am gathering information are and websites. In my search at both of these sites for reference to macro-evolution, I came across these:
One of the first things I noticed about these two sites is that they open with almost the same argument, but with different perspectives. Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution by Mark Isaak A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.) Five Major Misconceptions about EvolutionFive Major Evolutionist Misconceptions About Evolution (T. Wallace)a response to a nearly fact-free TalkOrigins essay of a similar title by Mark Isaak. A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.) http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp With the second piece being a rebuttal, I actually thought it quite clever to phrase it in such a similar fashion as the first, however, I see that those on both sides of the issue felt the need to defend themselves, and in the process, unnecessarily criticize those who hold the opposite point of view, though the ending quote on the rebuttal was also quite clever. The jury is still out on this one as far as I am concerned. I have much searching and reading ahead of me and I doubt that any concrete conclusion can be reached in anything but an extremely entended period of time.
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts can be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." Charles Darwin Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 06-15-2004 6:56 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
Macro vs Micro
darkStar writes: I am currently doing a self-imposed study on the possibilities of macro-evolution actually occuring in nature, though as yet I can not accept that this is a scientific theory due to it's inability to be observed, tested, or falsified. crashfrog writes: Well, you're probably right about that, since there's no such thing as "macro-evolution", any more than there's a distinction between "micro-walking" and "macro-walking." DarkStar replies: Then perhaps I should avoid the following site as it obviously states that there is such a thing as macro-evolution. Since it is in error on this point, I can deduce that it is in error on other points and is therefore an unreliable source of information. What is macroevolution? In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, a macrophage means a bigger than normal cell, but it is only a few times bigger than other cells, and not an order of magnitude bigger. In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa. Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy crashfrog writes: Evolution is a result, not a process. When you let the mechanisms of evolution run for a short time, you get what might be called "micro-evolution." When you let them run for a long time, you get what might be called "macro-evolution."
RESULT To come about as a consequence.
To end in a particular way.
The consequence of a particular action, operation, or course; an outcome.
.......
PROCESS A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result.
.........
MECHANISM A habitual manner of acting to achieve an end.
BlackStar replies: Let me see if I have this straight. Evolution=result, which signifies an end of action. Evolution does not=process, which signifies a series of actions, changes, or functions meant to bring about a result, or end of action. Mechanisms of evolution=an ongoing process of an already acheived result, or end? Froggy, what the hell are you talking about. Now you really have me confused. Maybe those christians are right, it may be easier to just say "god did it" than to figure out how the end of action has an ongoing action leading to an end of action ad infinitum. Talk about circular. Damn! I'm getting all discombobulated just thinking about that one. Discombobulated Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2004 2:59 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 126 of 179 (116240)
06-17-2004 10:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
06-17-2004 1:44 AM
|
|
Frozen in Thought?
Prior Lake, huh? Are you sure you're not from Frostbite Falls? Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2004 1:44 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 06-18-2004 1:38 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 130 of 179 (116572)
06-18-2004 8:04 PM
|
|
|
Message to Crustade & Frogga..... While your jocular nature may not be as seasoned as mine, I am genuinely confident in your abilities to convoke a more superior degree of facetiousness than what I have observed thus far. Jocose Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 133 of 179 (116754)
06-19-2004 9:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by crashfrog
06-19-2004 12:08 AM
|
|
crashfrog writes: I'm glad to know you have such faith in me. Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic about your ability to actually address rebuttals to your arguments.
DarkStar replies:
See, I knew you had it in you.
Now that was funny!
Good Job! Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2004 12:08 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 134 of 179 (116775)
06-19-2004 11:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 132 by nator
06-19-2004 9:53 PM
|
|
Re: Evolving Views
schrafinator writes: Specifics, DS. I'd like to know specifics.
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by nator, posted 06-19-2004 9:53 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 135 by nator, posted 06-20-2004 2:18 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 136 of 179 (117006)
06-21-2004 2:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 135 by nator
06-20-2004 2:18 PM
|
|
Re: Evolving Views
Hi Schrafinator Based upon your message, it is obvious that you have misunderstood what it is I have said. I shall endeavor to explain in a manner that is less confusing. schrafinator writes: Why do you conclude that our lack of knowledge about how honeybees make honeycomb means that an Intelligent Designer must have done it? I do not recall ever stating that as a conclusion that I have reached, though I can not, in good conscience, rule it out as a distinct possibility, however improbable it may seem. schrafinator writes: How do you tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one we don't understand now, or may never understand? I propose that we can not. Were we able to do so, this forum would serve little purpose, for me at least. schrafinator writes: Is the honeybee's construction of honeycomb the only specific example of what you see as ID? On the contrary, I acknowledge patterns, designs, and intelligent designs in nearly every aspect of life, here on earth and throughout the universe. schrafinator writes: Surely you didn't give up on science just because of a single, solitary gap in our knowledge, did you? I am unsure of where you got the idea that I have given up on science. Science is a necessary tool that must be used if we are to broaden our understanding, and increase our knowledge of all things within our universe. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by nator, posted 06-20-2004 2:18 PM | | nator has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 139 of 179 (117155)
06-21-2004 2:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by nator
06-21-2004 9:48 AM
|
|
Re: Evolving Views
schrafinator writes: Science is the process of understanding naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. DarkStar offers:Science:
[Lat. scientia]. For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity.
Previous DarkStar quote:On the contrary, I acknowledge patterns, designs, and intelligent designs in nearly every aspect of life, here on earth and throughout the universe. schrafinator writes: List them. Be specific. Obstinate behaviour and attitude will get you nowhere with me. Are you suggesting that you see no patterns in nature? Are you suggesting that you see absolutely no evidence of design in the universe? No designs anywhere that are intelligent in their construct? Are seasons an example of a steady pattern in nature or do they just randomly change, keeping no order? Are the orbits of the planets in our solar system an example of a working design or do they make abrupt and random changes, resulting in the deterioration and instability of life on our planet? The answers are obvious. schrafinator writes: If this long list of "aspects of life" has been Intelligently Designed, trying to figure out their naturalistic explanations is pointless, because, by definition, you somehow know that there is no naturalistic explanation, right? You are absolutely right. Naturalistic explanations would be pointless under such a scenario. However, I have never described the patterns, designs, and intelligent designs, which are so apparent in nature, as being the product of an intelligent designer rather than naturalistic forces. Please do not attempt to put words into my mouth. I am fully capable of speaking for myself, and of expressing my own opinions on these matters. Whether an entity simply has the appearance of having been intelligently designed when in actuality it is the result of natural phenomena is an arena I leave to the scientists. Whether an entity shows obvious indications of being an intelligent design is well within my expertise, as I have at my disposal the natural senses with which I was born. I can look at nearly every aspect of life and discover this, however I have no intention of offering you an endless list. I can look at a honeycomb and see the intelligence inherent in it's design. I can look at a spider web and see the intelligence inherent in it's design. I can look a a mussel that, though without sight, has the ability to exactly mimic shiners, which includes not only their size but also their color, in order to attract bass fish which it uses for propagation purposes. That is one hell of an intelligent design, at least it is so in my humble opinion. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by nator, posted 06-21-2004 9:48 AM | | nator has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2