Is McCain going to screw conservatives (again)?; RNC says message received?
Scroll down for updates…3:42pm Eastern… Message received? Fox: “Several sources at the RNC told FOX News that in the last 36 hours, senior McCain advisers and aides have told RNC officials that McCain ‘got the message’ last week that choosing a running mate who supports abortion rights would not be helpful.” Don’t exhale yet.
Wouldn’t put it past him. Would you? Which is why, despite all the encomiums he’s received from his Saddleback appearance, I haven’t joined the ga-ga bandwagon (and won’t).
Rich Lowry reports:
NR has learned that the McCain campaign has been calling key state GOP officials around the country the last couple of days and sounding them out about the consequences of a pro-choice VP pick. The campaign is asking about the reaction of conservative grass-roots activists to such a pick and whether a pro-choicer can be sold to them. This is an indication that the McCain campaign is serious about the possibility of a pro-choice VP nominee and that McCain leaving the door open to Tom Ridge last week may not have been merely a friendly nod to a longtime supporter.
Sound off. Guess they didn’t hear you loud enough the first go around.
Hat tip: Big A.
***
(T-shirts via Mommy Needs a Cocktail)
***
Update: David Limbaugh calls it…
McCain must quit echoing the Democratic talking point that places form over substance and the illusion of bipartisanship above principle. Who says Americans “want us to work together” if that means abandoning legal protection for the innocent unborn or other inviolable principles?
Update: McRudy?!?!?!
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Riehl World View
- I’m with you, Michelle Malkin. « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- Blogs of War: Is John McCain Considering a Pro-Choice VP Pick?
- John McCain is floating idea of Pro-Choice V.P., Base is PISSED!!! – Political Byline
- Watching the Candidates Play “Wheel of Vice Presidents” | The Sundries Shack
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » The amazing McCain self imploding campaign?
- JABbering Stooge :: ROTFLMAO! What a bunch of schmucks! :: August :: 2008
- McCain Gets It (Hopefully) « Mountain Shout
- UNCoRRELATED
- McCain Goes And Ticks Off The Conservative Base Again « Beltway Snark
- Michelle Malkin » McCain refuses to defuse rumors about pro-choice VP pick
- Playing Politics With Abortion | The Daily Conservative
- Questions Mitt Romney Hasn’t Answered - How Can This Man Be McCain’s VP of “Choice”? « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion, John McCain
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» O
martin.musculus(jr.) said:
So he is not a hard core leftist?
The “meat” of the post was that expecting to elect the perfect candidate and have him do exactly what you want him top do is crazy. Holding out for that person just means that the people who oppose the principles that you supposedly advocate are going to have their way with you. The way that have proposed is to elect someone who you will have to fight less, but actually make the effort to fight him on what you disagree on. Time and time again McCain has shown that he will listen to the conservative base. (Ie. drilling, immigration and even today a pro-life VP.) Obama has shown that the thinks we are a bunch of hillbilly idiots.
Without a crystal ball or a time machine I can’t prove anyone is not going to lie in the future.
I can only go on what the candidates have done and what they say they are going to do. I can work with and against what Senator McCain has said that he is going to do. I pledge to fight him on any amnesty bill.
Here is the thing, Reagan signed the largest amnesty bill in to law in US history. Knowing that, would it have been better to keep Carter?
The simplest answer to your question is: You don’t have to believe him. Only that you can make him hear you or make him believe that you can make his life difficult.
For the record, I tend to believe McCain.
Context is immaterial only to ignorant, lazy thinkers like you. Believe it or not, there are people who make it a lifetime study to learn the meaning, context, history, culture, and theology of Scripture.
I would take the word of those people over yours just as I would take a dentist over a used car salesman to give me a root canal.
Sheesh.
right4life said:
?
That is what Paul was referring to – kicking the guy out of the Church, so that he might repent and be restored (2nd Corinthians 2:5-11).
Responding to #492, the whackjob.
*I* did nothing. All I did was point out Matthew 7:21-23.
As for professional help, look who is projecting now. Didn’t even take the time to answer the rest of my statement.
Go make me a sammich, noob.
1 Corinthians 5:4-6 (New American Standard Bible)
4(A)In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, (B)with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5I have decided to (C)deliver such a one to (D)Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in (E)the day of the Lord [a]Jesus.
responding to lying piece of trash 496
and by doing so you accused me of being a false christian, and being damned to hell.
you’re a pathological liar, as well as being a hypocrite.
nutjob
zeroangel said:
I forgot:
4. The victim isn’t being punished. It is all about context, but I doubt you will listen.
right4life said:
And what do you think that means?
more proof moron, that you have judged my eternal soul. and who are you to judge my soul?? hmmm??
next you’ll be saying you’re Jesus!!
wacko!!
I am betting Cabtor gets it….
Bill
Cantor
just what it says. and its not the only time Paul did that. he also delivered Hymeneus and alexander to satan. so that they may be taught not to blaspheme.
but look, I remember you, you think baptism is necessary for salvation. which is not christian. you think all the christian churches, including the baptists, over the past 2000 years are wrong, and you are right.
and you could not admit what church you go to.
And looking at the context of that statement, destruction is not necessarily stating annihilation more than plain ruin. (see 1 Cor 11:30, 1 John 5:16-17.)
Consider this a challenge.
Atheling / Trollman:
Under no circumstances or any context in my mind is stoning a woman that was raped acceptable because she didn’t cry out.
The passage is outdated anyway you slice it.
right4life said:
So you believe they put the guy in an envelope, wrote “To Hell” on it, put a stamp on it, and put it in the mail box? To deliver one over to Satan was to boot them out of the Church, see the rest of the chapter & 2nd Corinthians 2.
right4life said:
Acts 2:38 – it is for the forgiveness of sin.
right4life said:
I go to the church of Christ.
zeroangel said:
Deuteronomy 22 does not say to stone the victims of rape.
I am the same as you, who has judged everyone here in the same measure. How does it feel to have it turned on you?
Nope, just one of his servants. With a .30-06 in one hand.
Says the legalist to the flock.
So, Sarah Palin’s (SP) name has come many times.
#14, 51, 137, 267, 272, 307, 312, 317, 425, 426, 437.
If we conservatives are against windfall profits tax (WPTax)then why did SP vote for and got a WPTax against big oil.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
oh yes, again just because you say so!! sure. it means exactly what it says…ever read the story of Job???? guess he was just booted out of the synagogue…sure.
38Peter said to them, “(AY)Repent, and each of you be (AZ)baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
repenting is the key here…otherwise if you have to be baptized for forgiveness and to receive the holy spirit, how did cornelius get the gift of tongues, before he was baptized?
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
oh let me guess, its not the ‘church of christ’ but the INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF CHRIST
which I am sorry to inform you, is a cult.
guess Paul forgot baptism didn’t he??
I’m not going to waste any more time with such an obvious nut-case.
one last thing SakakiO..I have quite a few guns myself, and I’m a pretty good shot…so your threats don’t impress me.
and my how ‘christian’ of you to threaten me…
Project much?
SakakiO
“What’s surprising is that these extremists that are using the bible to beat over people’s heads are doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to be doing: Using them for other believers or those who are questioning.”
thank you for the life line. seriously……I was starting to think that they were going to practice some of the “old ways” on me. sheesh…….what happened? these are “good” christians? i would hate to run into any of the “bad” ones in a dark alley.
bill grant:
“Obama has shown that the thinks we are a bunch of hillbilly idiots.”
okay in right4life’s case obama may just be right……….even a broken clock is right twice a day after all…
but good gawd…what a vicious little hater right4life is….appalling.so i am going to make a guess about him…can’t resist…he used to be a very very naughty person and just found jesus….
Oh ho ho…you think I’m threatening you when I only mention about my .30-06? If I did, I would have said it plainly.
See, part of the statement I use when talking with folks is that “I’m just one of God’s children, with a .30-06 in one hand and an NASB in the other.” They get a kick out of it, and usually talk for a bit.
So I suggest you calm down and just leave the boards.
CG,at least you’ve proven mccain gets the lying piece of trash wacko vote!!
ChristmasGhost:
There are a lot of us still out there. We just mind to our own, most times, and don’t actually beat people over the heads with scripture.
Look for the ones without the foam in their mouth and the wild eyes, like right4life. You’ll know us by our fruits.
And Go Sarah Palin! Vice President Mom FTW!
“right4life”….really? and just how is that? the proof i mean…that i am a liar…..hmmm?
SakakiO ….oh, thanks so much. that actually does make me feel better. i really haven’t run into anyone like this before.so when you say “fruits” i am thinking really really sour grapes….
and you bet about sarah palin! isn’t she great? and wouldn’t that be a brilliant choice?
Alot of this crap about pro choice vp election is being nothing more than just that— crap…and it usually generated by campaign staffer.
Sen McCain has only TWO choices he’s considering for VP. Only one right now has been thoroughly vetted: Eric Cantor.
The other candidate is NOT pro choice.
Palin would get these groups:
1) PUMAs. Those who wanted Hillary, but wouldn’t get Hillary.
2) Jews. Palin is a friend of Israel.
3) Horny College Guys who normally would vote for Obama. I didn’t say it was right, but just that it would be effective.
4) Those concerned about energy, and with McCain starting to switch his mind on ANWR, it’ll help compliment.
Energy and Military are going to be big this election. McCain has the edge on both. He just needs to put the right person in.
right4life said:
It is right there in the context, finish reading 1st Corinthians chapter 5.
right4life said:
We’ve already been through this. Both repentance and baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. If Peter’s word isn’t enough for you, then how about Ananias’? “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16b).
right4life said:
We’ve been over this, too. In context, Paul is talking about “calling on the Name of the Lord (Romans 10:13)” Believing, confessing, and calling on the Name of the Lord is referring to baptism (see Acts 8:36-38; 2:21 & 38 & 40-41).
right4life said:
I’ve already gone over that passage in depth on a previous thread. He isn’t talking about any works, Paul is referring to works of the Law of Moses, and specifically, circumcision. See Ephesians 2:11 & compare to Colossians 2:8-12, where Paul teaches that we are saved not by physical circumcision, but by a spiritual circumcision that happens when we are baptized into Christ. See also Galatians 3:26-27.
right4life said:
You are stuck on wrong. I do not attend the International church of Christ.
right4life said:
See what Paul wrote in Romans 6:3-11; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:26; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; among others.
And Huntress: I like Cantor. He’d bring the Jewish vote and would bring the base back to the square.
If you have any inside info on this, it’d be great to continue to hear what you have to say.
*cheers*
Oh now it all makes sense. Christmasghost is Liberal, but he just doesn’t realize it…
Poor boy.
Well, I’m sure that answer won some people over to the home team…
How do we know the Bible is accurate and true? The Bible defends itself. We know this: The Bible is a compilation of historical documents and eye-witness accounts that corroborate one another. The 66 books of the Bible were written over a period of 1500 years, by over 40 authors, in three different languages, and over a distance of three continents, yet one cannot find a contradiction in theme anywhere in the Bible. Most of these folks never met, yet their stories corroborate. Every week it seems we hear of another archaeological dig where something else corroborating the Bible’s story is found (there have been over 23,000 of these sort of digs). Charles Spurgeon once compared defending the Bible to defending a lion: you just turn the lion loose and it’ll defend itself. I’m merely explaining why I have faith in it.
Trollman:
So, are you saying that the following says that two people that have consensual sex in a city should both be stoned to death because one of them happens to be engaged?
This is better how?
Furthermore, the next passage is clearly referring to rape:
Since they are right next to each other shouldn’t I be taking them in context?
On top of that, why else should / would a woman be encouraged to cry out in a city?
Finally:
If not rape, what was that referring to? How has a woman that has consensual sex been humbled?
Honestly, these passages are indefensible and your attempts to do so are in the same exact league as Muslims trying to pretend that the various references to “Jihad” in the Koran don’t mean to go out and kill a bunch of people that don’t happen to believe in the same mythology as they do.
They are outdated as are many other things in Deuteronomy. My original point stands. Deuteronomy is a poor place to look for ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
yeah I’ve read it. at the end it says to expel the wicked man from among you, so? that is many verses removed from what Paul did. its plain and simple what Paul did, and its not the only time he did that. to have to twist it to meet your theology is typical for a cultist.
you can say that, and beleive it, but you cannot prove it with the bible. sorry. as with the verses I gave you, they did not mention baptism….why is that? you cannot answer.
again you have to add to the plain meaning of scripture to meet your preconceived notions.
says nothing about baptism. you have to twist the scripture again.
How about Jesus?
Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
according to you, Jesus was mistaken!! sure.
acts 8 is simply the story of the ethipian eunuch who asked to be baptized, so? it contains nothing that indicates baptism is necessary for salvation. you have to read that into the scripture, as you are wont to do.
no he’s not. you need to re-read that chapter. when he refers to the ‘circumcised’ he is referring to jews and the uncircumcised are gentiles.
ok so you attend the church of christ….oh yeah Obama’s church!! the most liberal denomination out there!!
United Church of Christ backs gay marriage
link
Galations 3 huh?
6Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
and in your verses, why do you consider the circumcision spiritual, and the baptism physical, why isn’t the baptism spiritual too?? only because it has to be that way to fit your preconceived notions.
the rest of your interpretation of scripture is similar. you interpret it in light of your beliefs, instead of just accepting what the plain language states.
and of course Paul also said:
“I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (1 Cor. 1:14-17).
if baptism is so important, why didn’t Christ send Paul to baptize?
Sorry, but I have to correct a BIG TYPO from Post #27. It seems you just can’t proofread enough times.
ChristmasGhost:
First let me say keep up the good fight and God bless. I spend so much of my online time arguing with Liberals, often defending Christians, that to come here and battle it out with Christian fanatics would be too disheartening. Someone needs to talk sense here.
I don’t want the American people to pay. The GOP, an organization of which I considered myself a member until the results of the Iowa caucus, should. The GOP deserves to pay because they pander to these people instead of leading them out of their fog of fanaticism.
On this I strongly disagree. I disagree based on a common misconception. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with “far right.” These people aren’t far right. These people are self-centered extremists, and with that I have a problem. The Christian fanatics are indeed little different than the far Left. They obviously have no objection to “judicial activism” so long as the judge ignores the Constitution, law and precedent in their favor. This is proven by their anti-abortion litmus test. “When does life begin?” And they still want to pretend they don’t want judicial activists? Nonsense. The correct answer should be, “My personal opinion is X. The law should be determined by state legislatures after RvW, which is bad law is overturned. I know I can count on Christians to win the populace to their arguments state by state.” But these people don’t want that. They want the same thing the far Left does, statism under their control. They are just using fetuses as an excuse, because it creates the illusion of a moral high ground. The far Left is the flip side of the same coin, hiding behind “choice” and “health.” Statists, all of them.
They’ve heard of it. They just have no interest in it. Like the far Left, they are far more interested in their own feelings than in law, liberty or honoring the founding documents that keep this country great. Attacking anyone who isn’t anti-abortion to their extreme makes them feel good. They can’t care less about other considerations, including the fate of the country should Obama win and have a Democrat Congress. Abortions will skyrocket, but they’ll feel good. What else matters?
I can see them having this discussion with God.
“But I fought for babies! I did the right thing!”
“You thought giving the election to a Marxist and ignoring the value of the documents I inspired the Founding Fathers to create, ushering in a new Dark Age that among other things brought the abortion rate to Soviet levels, instead of honoring the documents and winning people to your thinking by spreading My word was the right thing to do? *Sigh* Well, I promised to let you in, but wow am I disappointed.”
As would I. Watching this makes me question the staunch defense I often give when I’m battling it out with Liberals. While the Liberals may be wrong in their agenda, many of their criticisms aren’t as unwarranted as I’ve been arguing, it would seem.
you mean people that actually believe what the bible says.
anyone who disagrees with you moderates is an ‘extremist’ my how nuanced.
right4life:
If the above is among the things that you actually believe; well then, yes, you are the very definition of an extremist.
you know you miss one little thing about the OT, it was meant as a covenant for the jews, living in a theocracy called israel.
if you are really interested in exploring this issue, rather than using it as a club to beat christians with…though I think you’re in the latter camp…
link
link
right4life
I’m not going to waste a lot of time on those incapable of listening or thinking. I’m happy to discuss when I believe there is a chance of it. This is not one of those cases, clearly. I’ll sum it up as follows.
Please take careful note of the following statement. It is brief but profound. To the endless stream of denial and misplaced righteousness sure to come, please just consider my reply to be this following statement.
The Bible is not either of our founding documents.
Nothing about that obvious truth is confusing. Nothing.
Do I believe the Declaration and Constitution were inspired by or based on a Judeo-Christian ethic? Absolutely! (And believe you me, I have to argue that a lot with the extremists on the other side.)
Do I believe the Founding Fathers, the folks far more wise than you, certainly, would have just used the Bible as a founding document if that was their plan? Also yes!
The Bible wasn’t their founding document. The Declaration and Constitution were.
If you want to go off and create Bibleland, a country founded on your particular interpretation of the Bible (of which there are a great many, BTW) please feel free. Unfortunately, every time in history someone tries that they end up in bloody wars with everyone else of a different interpretation. That’s probably part of the genius behind our Founders, and exactly what they were trying to avoid. But I wish you well in that effort. Elsewhere.
In this country the founding documents are the Declaration and the Constitution. My argument, that of spreading the word of Christ to change minds about abortion, and striking RvW because it is bad Constitutional law, then leaving it up to the representatives of the people, honors both Christianity and conservatism. See how that works?
Your argument, that any leader who doesn’t believe that conception is from birth and enforce it through judicial activism, may honor your particular view of what Christ and the Bible teach, but it sure doesn’t respect the Founders, the Constitution, the law or legal precedent (that last an important part of a stable society).
If you’ll notice, my negative opinion of your political ideology has nothing to do with a negative view of the Christian faith or your feelings about abortion. I respect your feelings about abortion and that they are based on the Bible.
So yes, I get to label your arguments and basis in regard to politics fanatical. And I backed it up. Your response of “BUT GOD SAYS” will not change which one of us thought through their argument in light of the best interests of this Republic and provided a sound foundation for it. Just go back and reread the statement in bold above.
right4life:
I went to Sunday school (and was communed and confirmed), I have explored these things. I also understand that the NT trumps the Old, and that folks claim these things should be “taken in context.” Furthermore, I am willing to bet the lengthy links you provided can be summed up fairly easily as follows:
Did “God” change his mind over the course of history?
Did the writers of the OT not quite “get” what “God” was trying to inspire them to write?
Or, was it simply written by men and no deity inspired it?
What is your personal opinion? Are there others ways to look at this than the three above? Please describe them in your own words.
Oh, another one to add:
Are certain parts of the Bible inspired by “God” and others aren’t?
yeah so? you were talking about ‘christian fanatics’, so what does that have to do with the constitution?
do you think they just made it up out of thin air? please. where do you think they got those principles at?
uh yeah I’m sure you’d rather be in a nice secular state, like the soviet union. or north korea.
you are really clueless about what I believe. I think the whole concept of judical review is tyrannical and the ability of the supreme court to interpet the constitution is profoundly wrong.
apparently to you, its OK to impose abortion through judicial activism, just not to overturn it through judicial activism..uh yeah ok.
and how does that work in actuality? congress passed the hamdan law…and forbade the courts to interpret it….and the supreme court ignored it, and grabbed the power anyway….so really we live in a judicial oligarchy, and you can argue all you want about the constitution, and rights, but its all about what 5 people in black robes say our rights and constitution are.
as long as the law and constitution is what 5 people in black robes say it is, then precedent is a joke, the constitution is a joke.
thats your opinion, so what? you have a caricature view of me, and the view of christian conservatives.
uh I didn’t say that. perhaps you should take more careful note of whom you are arguing with.
No He did not change His mind…I think you misunderstand How God deals with people at different times…dispensations.
no, what was written was/is the Word of God. But as Jesus made clear with throwing out the dietary laws, the OT has been superseded by the NT.
you didn’t read the articles, and your summation is incorrect.
right4life:
Well, if you believe in an absolutist or objective morality, why was it “God’s will” to stone people for various crimes several thousand years ago but it is not today?
I did not read the articles and if it’s OK with you, rather then spend a great deal of time wading through those articles I would like your personal opinion of what actually went on. If you could or need to paraphrase those articles, please do.
whether its stoning, or electrocution, or whatever means, the penalty for sin has never changed…death. From the time of Adam, sin was, and is, punishable by death. and not just physical death, but the eternal death of hell.
But the Lord, in order to show His mercy, has paid the price, in His own body, for our sins.
so the morality has not changed at all, it never will. There is no theocracy anymore, and the Lord leaves it up to the nations to decide how to administer punishments for sins of various types.
but of course ultimately justice is handed out by the Lord. and yes, in His justice the slightest sin is punishable by death, in hell.
and before you whine about how ‘unfair’ and ‘mean’ hell is, consider that the alternative, His presence, is far worse to a sinful being. have you ever considered how terrified the demons that Jesus encountered were of Him?
zeroangel said:
If you are willing to now admit you were wrong, that the Bible does not say to kill rape victims, then we can continue.
Something you need to understand about marriage in that culture – if you were engaged (betrothed), you were considered married. Even though you hadn’t had sexual intercourse yet and hadn’t yet lived together, it took nothing less than a divorce to end the marriage (betrothal). So it was adultery.
Why the harsh penalty? You would have to understand the dynamics of marital faithfulness, families, and survival in this time & place.
zeroangel said:
Yes it is, which is different from the passage that precedes it. In much of Deuteronomy, you have a list of situations with the prescribed punishments connected with them. That these 2 passages, even though they are next to each other, do not talk about the same thing – which is why the punishments are different.
zeroangel said:
Notice in this passage, you have the principle of “presumed innocence”. Since a woman would have been powerless to stop a man from raping her in the middle of no where, she is presumed innocent and not to be punished.
zeroangel said:
This is simply a list of laws concerning different sexual situations that might come up. Not all of them are about rape, and not all are about consensual sex.
zeroangel said:
That passage is talking about rape. The punishment (for the man, note that the woman is not punished) doesn’t make sense in 21st century America, but it was a practical and compassionate law given the realities of that time.
Rather than having the rapist stoned (which was the usual punishment for a rapist), he was forced to marry her and never divorce her. Back then, it was an honor/shame culture. An unmarried woman who bad been violated in such a way would have been undesirable, nobody would marry her.
A woman without a husband or sons would not have any means for support or security back then. She would be forced to take up begging and/or prostitution just to try to survive.
This way, the woman is at least cared for in that the man was forced to provide for, feed, clothe, and protect as long as she lived. It didn’t matter if she nagged him 24/7 or spit in his food, he could never divorce her. The law makes the best of a horrible situation. So you have this law to protect and provide for a woman, in an era where women were considered little more than cattle.
zeroangel said:
No, what is indefensible is you accusing these laws to be ridiculous without even bothering to find out the context in which they were given.
It would be like someone saying “It is barbaric to be able to shoot people dead just for being out on the street at 10PM” – while ignoring the fact that martial law was being implemented due to a major natural disaster or terrorist attack. Sometimes the realities demand harsh laws and punishments.
When these laws were written, around 1500BC, the world was a lot different. It was like a constant state of martial law – it was the Wild West to the nth degree.
zeroangel said:
Actually, our current views of law and morality have a great deal to do with the principles taught in the Books of Moses, far more than you know. Such principles as presumed innocent, requiring a higher standard of evidence for death penalty cases, laws protecting women, separation of church and state, etc. are in there.
The principles are timeless, but yes, brace yourself, I agree with you that many of these laws are “outdated”. Even the Bible agrees with you on that part.
The laws found in the Books of Moses only work for within a certain context – climate, geography, it assumes a certain kind of economy, and so forth. This is why it was only for a certain people in a certain place for a certain period of time.
Deut. 18:15-19 & Jeremiah 31:31-34 teach that the Law would stay in effect until a new “Moses” came and brought a new & different law. This law, the law of Christ, was meant for people of every nation, all over the world, until the end of time. Notice that the law of Christ (found in the NT) is typically a lot more palatable to the modern mind, since it isn’t based upon the limited assumptions of an ancient time, culture, & economy.
It shows that, even from ancient times, the Author of the Bible could see past the realities of that time, into a future that is radically different. Which is very much unlike other laws and religions of ancient, and even medieval, times.
right4life said:
I have already gone over many of your objections in depth in a previous thread, and since you are unwilling to learn or listen, I am done arguing with you over the finer points of Scripture. If you refuse to believe or repent, the Lord Himself will rebuke you.
right4life said:
And you are still wrong. I am not a part of the United church of Christ; though like much of what you have posted, it is a common mistake. My church is not liberal, and definitely does not support Same Sex Marriage.
I’m not Catholic, Mormon, a cultist, ICoC, or UCoC. Got it?
Right4life:
So, you are of the opinion that the exact wordings of these passages in Deuteronomy are not to be taken literally, but metaphorically?
If that is the case, where does it leave all the people stoned to death in ancient Israel? On top of that, who determines what should be taken literally? Who says which ones are metaphors and which ones are not? Who says how those metaphors should be interpreted?
Are you of the opinion that a woman that is raped in a city and doesn’t cry out will suffer in hell? How do you interpret Deuteronomy 22:23-24?
Trollman:
No, I am not willing to admit I am wrong. The passage from Deuteronomy only says a woman in a city that doesn’t cry out. It does not say, “unless she was forced.” This is very clearly the old “blame the victim” mentality that was no doubt prevalent at the time and still is today in some areas.
Most of your post can be replied to in one reply: If “God” is all mighty and all powerful why couldn’t he just command his people to stop being such misogynists?
Exactly! Why didn’t the all-powerful, all-knowing “God” simply say to his people in the Bible, “Stop treating women like cattle!”
The problem with this analogy is that the whole “martial law” situation could have been fixed or made a great deal better if “God” wrote in the Bible: “Listen guys, women are not objects and you need to start treating them equally and fairly.”
My original point still stands, Deuteronomy is a poor place to look for ideas about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and it is precisely because it is outdated, something we seem to agree on.
oh yes you are the oracle of God.
perhaps you are the one that needs to learn and repent of a salvation of works. The bible is clear, you cannot dispute the points, only ‘interpret’ them to match your beliefs.
no, those were meant to be taken literally.
they’re dead. what their ultimate fate is I do not know.
that verse is meant to be taken literally, usually its pretty plain and simple what is literal and what is symbolic. how do you do that with other books?
no, thats a rather foolish comment to make. you do not see the forest for the trees. Samson sinned, and paid quite a price in this life, but was saved, and in fact is a hero of the faith.
it seems you have a caricature view of the bible and christianity. are you really trying to learn something, or just playing a gotcha game?
it means exactly what it says. whats so hard about that?
right4life:
I am trying to make the point that Deuteronomy is a poor place to find ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think my point is well-made.
Either you literally think people should be stoned for adultery or you don’t, which one is it?
I would profoundly disagree, sorry.
you know I’ve already explained my position clearly. you’re just playing a gotcha game. its gotten to the point of casting pearls before swine.
zeroangel said:
Yes, that much is clear now. You, who criticize what you do not understand, and when called on it, doesn’t even care. This is why this time, like several times before, I will simply have to walk away.
right4life said:
Jesus is clear, faith in Him is itself a work that you must do in order to receive the gift of eternal life (John 6:26-30). If you believe you are saved apart from any works, then you believe you are saved even without faith in Christ. Good luck on that one.
Trollman / right4life:
It is both of your dogmatic positions that befuddle and frustrate atheists / agnostics / sensible Christians.
Many people have come to realize that a benevolent, all-powerful, creator of universe wouldn’t want raped women married to their rapist, nor would he give tacit approval to a misogynist culture by laying out laws to suit them. Once you accept that perhaps, maybe the entire text of the Bible isn’t the literal word of God, the extreme mental gymnastics are no longer necessary.
Trollman:
To be clear, I am not willing to admit I am wrong because I am not wrong; not because I think I am wrong but won’t admit it. Geee…
faith is not a work. you sound much like a catholic.
Rom 4:4-5. “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work, but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”
if faith is a work, then our salvation is due us as a wage because of what we have done. clearly this is not the case, salvation is a gift of grace, based upon what He has done.
ephesians 2:
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
good luck working your way into heaven.
you are as dogmatic as you accuse us of being.
you know the Lord didn’t want Israel to have a king either, but He gave them one….and He really doesn’t like divorce, but He allows it.
you have no idea what you are talking about, and you don’t know how long people have deeply thought about these issues. but you have no interest in really exploring these issues.
you are as dogmatic as you accuse us of being.
you know the Lord didn’t want Israel to have a king either, but He gave them one….and He really doesn’t like divorce, but He allows it.
you have no idea what you are talking about, and you don’t know how long people have deeply thought about these issues. but you have no interest in really exploring these issues.
right4life
I am very sorry you chose not to read or consider a thing I wrote, as proven by your having questioned what was already explained.
I am unsurprised, but greatly saddened.
As one point of clarification, I am not a secularist. Nor am I an atheist. That you couldn’t grasp that after having read what I’d written proves my point about fanaticism. Really, to prove my point all I need do is leave you to talking. So I will.
I’m not doing any gymnastics. you’re looking for me to say ‘yes stone all women just for the fun of it, because thats what christians really enjoy!!!’
and don’t forget to kick the puppies and children!!
so you can say ’see how dumb and stupid those hick christians are’
laughable. but typical.
I’m very sorry for you inability to comprehend what I said. I’m not surprised given your rant.
and of course once you accept that, then who decides what is and is not the word of God? you do! you get to become your own little god.
sounds like fun, but it never quite works out that way.
right4life:
That may be, but I am not the one defending a 2000 year-old text that says stoning is a proper punishment for sleeping with someone other than one’s spouse or changing one’s religion.
Of course I do on both counts, and as I pointed out, a great many sensible folks have decided (after all this deep thinking) that it’s rather likely that the entire Bible was not written by God.
No, I am looking for an honest admission, that either 1) Deuteronomy shouldn’t be taken literally, or 2) the whole Bible wasn’t written by God, at least not a benevolent one (or both).
A great deal of my immediate family is Christian and I was raised Christian, though I am certain not one of my family members is so zealous to actually try and defend Deuteronomy as the actual word of God.
Nay, I don’t become a God. I just remain a person with an evolved sense of empathy and compassion for all my fellow human beings; a sense of empathy that exists as it is in the real world and doesn’t require supernatural justification.
how about being cast into hell for that?
and how do they decide that? oh yeah they don’t like what was written, so they just throw it out…back to being your own god…you know having a god in your own image…one you like, and are comfortable with.
I already told you deuteronomy should be taken literally. and yes the Bible is written by God, if not you might as well throw the whole thing out, because how could know what part is, and what part is not written by God?
and of course you know better than the God of the Bible!! I’m sure you’re very proud of yourself!
oh so where does your morality come from? let me guess, its what you decide is good or evil. le me guess again, you’re a darwinist.
Wow.
Most of that just really deserves to stand on its own. However, I can’t help myself:
Indeed.
I certainly know better than whomever wrote Deuteronomy.
My morality (something I have stated several times on this forum) comes from an evolved, rational respect and empathy for fellow human beings. There is nothing super-natural about it.
As for being a “Darwinist”:
I accept the Theory of Evolution and the mountains of evidence that support it, yes. Do you believe that God created the Earth in 7 days a few thousand years ago?
of course you do! why don’t you just write your own bible then? start your own religion, you could be the guru..the NEW MESSIAH
I hear you get a lot of girls too!! its fun, at least for now….
yeah you don’t need a God! you are your own god, deciding good and evil.
oh gee, what a surprise!! your ‘mountain’ is less than a molehill. you cannot demonstrate it in a lab, nor can you show evolution in the fossil record. Thus Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium, to try to explain the lack of transitional fossils. you cannot explain the tuatara, for example, that has the highest DNA evolution, yet is a living dinosaur.
you know I’m honestly not sure about the time frame. though I doubt the billions and billions of years that darwin dogma requires.
but yes God created the earth, and all life on it.
I never suggested writing my own Bible. I don’t have to, most sensible people know better than whoever wrote Deuteronomy.
As for girls, I am happily married.
I don’t “decide” good and evil. It is hard wired into all mentally healthy human beings.
Yet the vast overwhelming majority of scientists in the field agree with it, whether they are religious or not. It has been demonstrated in a lab:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Furthermore, “Ring species” offer strong evidence as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
The fossil record does support evolution, however, every time a new “transitional fossil” is found, the “creationists” claim there are now two gaps! There are several ways to explain the tuatara and they all jive just fine with evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara#Taxonomy_and_evolution
Is it possible in your mind that He could have used evolution as the mechanism?
again you decide what is good or evil, right or wrong. you don’t need another god or savior.
uh yeah sure it is…a statement of darwinian faith. and of course YOU get to decide who is mentally healthy, or not. and of course believing in the supernatural disqualifies one from being ‘mentally healthy’.
and the ones that don’t are sued, silenced and harassed (sternberg) out of the field. interesting that evolution is the only ’science’ that needs lawyers to defend it.
Basically, the E. coli already had the machinery to digest citrate, but just lacked a gateway to get the nutrient inside, which was not that improbable a hurdle for a couple of mutations to permit. This accomplishment is orders of magnitude simpler than the kind of luck required to build the machinery in the first place. and after that stunning and amazing feat of evolution… its still e.coli. oh well
link
Ring species only show that variants of a single species can lose the ability to interbreed. Gradualism in variants isn’t under dispute. Gradualism leading to novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans is in dispute
I didn’t know Gould was a closet creationist!!
Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?
Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.
I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.
link
this is a generic article about the tuatara, why don’t you explain in detail to me how the molecular evolution that does not translate to ‘macro evolution’ ‘jive with evolution’??
your link explained nothing, sorry.
He could have done anything, but thats not what evolution is all about…evolution is materialism, atheism…as even that ‘closet creationist’ gould understood:
“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution,” (- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History 33 (W.W. Norton 1977).)
right4life:
I don’t need or want a God or savior that wrote Deuteronomy. Even if I was a believer I would believe that God didn’t write it.
As for mental health, I was referring to sociopathic or psychopathic people that lack any sort of empathy. Please don’t twist what I say.
I am not sure which “Sternberg” you are referring to, but the fact is, “scientists” that espouse a belief in creation theory are run out not because they are trying to be suppressed but because what they are professing is not science. Science deals with the natural world and asks “how or by what process did ‘God’ do such and such.” It is not science to say “God simply called animals and man into existence” in the same way it is not science to say “Zeus throws lightning bolts.” This is religion or philosophy.
It is a different species of e. coli and we are talking about evolution over only 20 years! How do you not walk a mile by taking a step at a time?
As for ring species, the ability to interbreed and produce viable offspring is a defining characteristic of what a “species” is.
Again, how do you not walk a mile by taking one step at a time?
As for the fossil record and “gaps” you simply will never fill every gap. Every species that ever existed is a “transitional species” everything is constantly evolving.
The Tuatara could have just as easily found a niche. It could simply be well suited to its environment, and happened to not have major changes.
Science is “atheistic” by nature, it only deals with the “natural” world. In the same way that Mathematics is atheistic. That doesn’t mean believe in evolution gets rid of God. The fact that I am an atheist is not just about evolution and one can still believe in a supremely intelligent “God” that “designed” DNA and basically set the whole thing in motion.
In any event, I would like to understand what your counter-theory is.
Do you believe “God” called into existence all species at once? Do you believe “God” dabbled with various forms of life (dinosaurs and such) and finally settled on the current forms after scrapping several others? Do you believe “God” used evolution as the mechanism and just prodded it along? What is your counter-theory and what evidence supports it?
Sorry, the above should read not it is a different species of E. Coli but that the ability to digest citrate is considered defining of the species.
ok, but how do you make that determination? the bible clamis to be the word of God, as does Koran, so both cannot be true for example. and if you say parts of the bible are not divinely inspired, how do you make that determination?
ok maybe I went a little to far, but you know homosexuality used to be a pathology, now its not, so why not the same for christianity, for example?
for more information…
I find this interesting. you are admitting that science = naturalism which of course equals atheism. you are a priori ruling out God from nature, and are forcing science into a materialistic paradigm. This is exactly what evolutionists do…and who are they to define ’science’? and evolutionists define ’science’ then why do they need to go to court to silence those who disagree?
and how do you define species? usually its two animals that cannot produce offspring, but since a bacteria doesn’t mate to reproduce…..and this wonder of ‘evolution’ did not create a new ‘type’ of animal, it is still a bacteria. if you really want to demonstrate evolution…evolve a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal, with a new form, functions, etc. hate to tell you, but speciation is part of creationism and ID.
this is just another statement of darwinian faith. you do not see it in the fossil record, and you can only assume it with living animals, you cannot prove it.
I find this analogy rather interesting..I have to think about what direction to take, and how to move my muscles to take this step…in other words, each step is guided by intelligence, while evolution purports to be purposeless, and directionless.
but lets use this analogy…so how many steps to an ew type of animal? and tell me, since each step must endow an animal with a competitive advantage, how exactly does that work with a large number of steps? because each change takes energy to create this ’step’ and maintain it. please explain the ’steps’ to vision, for example (in detail) and tell me what advantage each step gave the animal.
another statement of faith. in 200 million years, its environment did not change, but ours has!! my aren’t we *special*!! but one change in the e.coli is a major proof of evolution, but an animal that has taken who knows how many ’steps’ in ‘micro’ evolution has not taken a ’step’ in macro evolution in 200M years…but evolution has an answer for everything…because evolution is all in all…praise darwin!!
why? who says science has to be ‘atheistic’?? do you think pasteur, Kelvin, Newton, Pascal, etc would agree?? we look for signs of intelligence in archeology, which is a science, correct? and we look for signs of intelligence in SETI, which is a science…but we are disallowed from looking for signs of intelligence in biology. that makes perfect since if science = atheism which means science is a religion.
well as dawkins said, evolution allows one to be a fulfilled atheist (paraphrase). oh yes theistic evolution…trying to have your cake and eat it too. but theistic evolution isn’t evolution, its not taught in schools, its basically a fig leaf for atheistic evolution.
I am a creationist. I basically agree with many of the precepts of ID, but I take it farther than they do. but evolutionists find no difference between the 2 anyway. and of course my theory much better explains the evidence. ever hear of the anthropic principle? the more we find out about cosmology the more fine-tuned we find the universe is…like it was designed that way. the alternative is the multi-verse, which is totally untestable, and unscientific, although it is accepted in ’scientific’ circles because it reinforces atheism.
and of course the lack of transitional fossils matches a creationist, or ID view that animals were designed, and fully formed when they appeared.
no, the bible is clear about that.
no are you saying God caused things to become extinct? if so, no.
no
see above, and you could check out sites like
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
http://trueorigins.org
etc.
interestingly on uncommondescent, they just posted that a new paper passed peer review…
link
I really haven’t had a chance to look at it in depth, but isn’t it really saying that the complexity, the ability to generate an eye, for example, was designed into the genome…without using that dread word…design..???
the very complexity of lower forms of life, which this paper admits, would work against darwinism, which would advocate a simpler genome which progressed to a more complex genome for more complex animals.
I just read the first and last page real quick. It seems to be saying that the “code” for something like an “eye-spot” could exist in an organism’s DNA, but the eye-spot won’t show up until the “code” is activated in some way by some other mutation. It’s not saying that the “code” for the eye-spot was “designed” but rather that it randomly came into being from junk-code. It’s not talking about a highly complex “eye” like mammals have.
So, then, would I be correct in saying that you believe “God” called into being very simple organisms (like sea-urchins) long ago and purposely created their DNA code in such a way so that eventually humans, dinosaurs, animals, plants, et al. would develop?
Also, a quick note; Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is about as close to “Darwinism” as Newton’s mechanics are to Einstein’s theories of relativity. I realize that the word is used in a negative connotation, but it should be said for the benefit of anyone reading that evolutionary theory has been much refined over the years.
but why would that code be there at all??? this would imply intelligent design, not random evolution.
no I believe organisms were fully formed…I threw that article in because I thought it was interesting.
but this refinement has to do with the mechanism, not the underlying philosphy of evolution, ie basic materialism.
As I said, the code could be there by random mutation; “junk-code” that by chance turned out to be “something.” Doubtless countless other instances of “junk-code” did nothing, but some “got lucky.”
Please help me understand, when you say you believe organisms were fully formed, what does that mean exactly? Do you believe that God dabbled with dinosaurs, proto-mammals, and countless other now extinct species only to have them killed off again and again to later create modern animals and humans? How do you explain that the geological record shows that life seemed to become more complex over time? Do you believe “God” slowly “got better” at making life and kept scrapping and refining his designs?
I am sorry, I am not sure what you are getting at. I thought I had explained that science by definition has to describe the natural world and only the natural, observable, testable world, otherwise it isn’t science. Quantum theory, Theories of Relativity, Theory of Gravity, and so on; they all only describe the natural world.
as far as that article, I put that in because it implies intelligent design, without saying the words, much as the following does:
biological big bang…miracle? whats the difference?
another statement of faith. I mean seriously what competative advantage would it infer? none. so why would it be there? you are proving that evolution is a faith, because nothing could ever disprove it, which of course would make evolution unscientific. if you can’t disprove something its not science.
as I said before, no.
the geological record shows just the opposite of evolution, ie the cambrian explosion. and that is not the only ‘bang’
you described science as atheism. and that is the underlying philosphy of evolution. the changes you refer to in evolution (the ‘evolution’ of the theory of evolution) have to do with the mechanism, not the philosphy of the theory. it was, and is, an atheistic, materialistic view of the world. and it precludes God.
The difference is that the writer of that Hypothesis is not suggesting a miracle. After a quick skimming of it he seems to be talking about the idea that rapid evolution could occur based on a variety of items, but he doesn’t suggest a designer.
A scientific theory is not “faith” in that one must believe in an unchanging idea. Science constantly changes and refines itself based on evidence, including evolution. In this particular item you cited it’s not talking about a “competitive advantage” and Modern Evolutionary Theory is not always about “competitive advantage” as in pure “natural selection” or “Darwinism.” There are actually a variety of ideas, to include these random mutations that later, by chance, could create a “competitive advantage.” “Theories” do involve “speculation” and “assumptions” by their nature. This is different than “faith.”
The basic ideas of Modern Evolutionary theory could be “disproven.” For example, if someone dug up a fully formed and modern Ape in the same geological era as trilobites it would totally destroy evolution, this has not happened.
The Cambrian explosion shows a variety of different primitive species, but there isn’t any Apes around, for example.
Yes, science has to be atheistic (like Math, as I said). It’s not that it precludes “God,” it just doesn’t even attempt to describe “God.” It only describes the natural world. If it were the case that God called into being all the species on Earth in their modern form at once we would have no changes in the fossil record and science would likely have no explanation at all and science would be in the same place it were before evolutionary theory.
What exactly do you believe then? Please explain. Do you believe “God” created all species on Earth all at once?
Sorry, I see your post from before now. I guess my browser didn’t update, let me read.
Reference your earlier post that I missed:
If I were a believer I would imagine that the various religions and holy books over the years only got part of “God’s” truth. I would turn to my naturally “hard-wired” empathy, upbringing, society, rationality, etc. and “discover” what is moral. Stoning people for changing their religion, for example, is immoral, and I couldn’t believe a benevolent “God” wrote that.
Are you saying that at some point in the future some people would decide that “religion” is a pathology? I can’t see that happening since it seems to me there is an ingrained human need to understand, make sense of, or find purpose in the world. As such, it seems there will always be room for religion.
If you nail me down, yes I will admit science must equal naturalism. It has to, otherwise it would be considered science to say lightning bolts come from “God” throwing them! It still does not preclude a transcendent “God” though. Such a “God” is beyond “nature.” If you are talking about court battles raging in public schools that want to teach creationism, it’s not about silencing someone. It’s about making the point that religion and philosophy can’t be taught in science class.
Species is admittedly hard to nail down as a definition. It isn’t a “digital” question, it is “analog.” Regardless, the changes in E. coli over only 20 years are remarkable and do support (not prove) evolution.
No “Theory” can be “proven.” A “Theory” never becomes a “proof.” It just becomes more and more supported. “Theories” are about speculation.
These “steps” aren’t so much “directionless.” Think of a bunch of blind men stumbling around. Most of them will get nowhere, some might wander into traffic, but a few, over a long period of time, might actually get somewhere.
Steps to vision and creating an eye are well defined. There are various stages of development to a complex human eye starting with a simple “eye-spot” that can barely see shadows. If you really want detail, you can find it on your own. I am not about to give you a free online science class *smile*, not because I don’t want to, but I really don’t have the time for such a massive post!
Kelvin, Newton and Pascal may have been religious, but they didn’t use miracles to describe something they couldn’t describe naturally in their scientific works. They looked for natural explanations. Signs of intelligence in Archeology are looked for because we are looking at things we know to be built by humans. As for SETI, it’s the same thing, just not humans. If you want to propose IT in biology, you have to describe what you think that intelligence is, and what mechanism it used.
Of course I know what the atrophic principle is.
I am still not clear what your theory is and I’m sorry but I’d rather hear it from you. I don’t want to have to wade through pages of text in blogs to find it laid out.
What exactly do you believe? What do you mean you take “ID” a step further? What form of “ID” do you believe? Why do we see various different fossils in the fossil record of many extinct species?
Sorry mispelled Anthropic, probably a few other things as well.
I looked back again a bit:
So, is your Theory that “God” did dabble with various forms of life over many years but he just didn’t cause them to become extinct?
so your theory is no matter what the question, evolution is the answer. evolution to you, and to most darwinists, is a religion, and as you continue to prove, no amount of evidence will dissuade you from that faith. evolution is a religion.
you have proven that it is a faith. the mechanism may change, but the underlying faith that all life came from purely naturalistic causes does not.
uh you should re-read the theory of evolution. if it does not give a competative advantage, then why have it? how would it be passed on? every change requires a certain cost, and if there is no benefit, then it is a net disadvantage to the organism that has this new trait. and yet you say no matter what, evolution is the answer. amazing.
there have been human footprints found by dinosaur tracks…but of course those are some other animal, or they are fake. or they or silenced, or ignored, just like what happened to sternberg.
and of course you could not answer the question about the tuatara, just give a basic statement of faith, that evolution can account for ANYTHING. and whats funny is people like you call people like me ‘fanatics’ and ‘fundamentlists’ when in fact you are a fanatical and fundamental darwinist.
and so? evolution has no explanation for the cambrian explosion, or any of the others, other than to come up with ‘punctuated equilibrium’ which basically says ‘evolution happened REAL fast’. but of course no matter what, evolution is the answer. and you don’t see how dogmatic this is. amusing.
uh yeah because atheists say so, sure. no it does not, sorry.
oh please, evolutionists routinely deny the existence of God, even in ’scientific’ publications…
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
you don’t have gradual changes that evolution calls for in the fossil record. you have species appearing and disappearing, just as creationism would predict.
which is a pretty good place, remember mendel and genetics? came up with that all without evolution, same for pasteur. so what does evolution do for science? nothing, zero zip nada.
as even coyne admits…
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
link
I have repeated myself too many times now to do so again. I have already addressed all of your points and a lot of your post deserves to stand on it’s on. Notably:
Your bigotry against atheists and hostility toward science is lamentable and seemingly impenetrable.
You don’t seem to understand the Theory of Evolution, as evidenced by the following:
…and I grow weary of trying to explain.
You actually believe that an all-powerful, benevolent being wrote a text that says it’s OK to stone people for changing their religion. You actually seem to believe that this same all-powerful man in the sky dabbled with various forms of life over millions of years, first Cambrian critters, than perhaps certain kinds of aquatic life, then maybe dinosaurs, then mammals, then finally humans. This doesn’t sound like an all-powerful being but an “apprentice-God” perfecting his craft.
But then, you seem to think dinosaurs and humans coexisted?! Honestly, how could humans possibly compete with dinosaurs?
We will have to agree to disagree.
If there is anyone left reading I hope this thread has illustrated why folks like me (fiscally conservative; pro-defense; Republican; and atheist / agnostic) are so very frustrated with the anti-science, far-right, “evangelical” wing of the Republican party. Thank you.
yeah Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, thought much the same way.
oh yes because you say so. you have a god in your own image. (you)
have you not read history? the communists tried to destroy christianity, along with the romans, and Hitler tried to destroy the jews. sigh….
and the atheists drive out any who disagree from their faith…er ’science’ thanks for admitting that evolution is a faith, not science. and no science does not have to be materialistic. in fact this whole notion of evolution is a science stopper. the whole notion of ‘junk dna’ is proof that evolution stops science, instead of advances it. we’ve come to find out there is no ‘junk’ dna.
link
evolution is a religion, and its taught as a ’science’
link
this is why darwinists have to go to court, and use intimidation, harassment, whatever it takes, to silence the opposition. they’re like a bunch of imams protecting their religion. and you darwiniacs are losing the battle, given your desperate tactics and the ease of someone like ben stein to make the great evolutionist dawkins look like a fool. dawkins admitted intelligent design was OK, as long it didn’t mention *GOD*…its laughable.
blind men are intelligent. all of your analogies are of intelligent design, not evolution. if something is not ‘directionless’ then it is directed, and implies a will, intellignece behind that direction.
really? well why don’t you just list all those steps for me. you cannot. Ernst Mayr writes that the eye must have evolved independently at least 40 times, this is beyond belief. there is no explanation for how eyes evolved, other than, ‘they evolved’, and there is no explanation for the similarity of eyes between widely divergent animals, such as humans and squid.
its because you can’t, and neither can anyone else. but keep the faith!!
yeah thats been done, but since it threatens the atheism of the faith of evolution its ‘not allowed’.
I’ve already told you…God created all life, and the universe. what do you mean, what form of ID?? why do animals go extinct? probably a variety of reasons, from being overhunted to loss of habitat, what that has to do with evolution, creation, or ID??? I don’t know.
you have been unable to address any of my points, other than the standard answer ‘it evolved’.
yes it ALWAYS comes down to ‘bigotry’ ‘hostility’ ‘hatred’ when you are unable to answer the objections to your beloved faith of evolution. I understand how you have to defend the faith, its so predictable, and lame. you darwiniacs, and yes you are one, have no answers just blind faith.
because its obvious you CANNOT explain. and yes without a competative advantage, a trait will not be passed on. learn your own theory.
yeah and atheists, and others, have been trying to disprove the bible for millenia…all to no avail. but because *you* say so, I should just throw the bible out…right..laughable.
I didn’t say that, you did. because you cannot deal with the truth that God created life…he didn’t ‘dabble’ or ‘experiment’ sorry, those are your words. you have to lie about what I said, because you cannot answer me any other way..typical darwiniac.
how could humans compete with mammoths, short-faced bears and saber-toothed tigers??
you’re just frustred by anyone or anything that denies your faith in your hairygod darwin.
*sigh*
Reduction ad Hitlerum, again. Note to all: whether or not Hitler was an atheist was debatable. Furthermore, his soldiers and other loyal Germans certainly weren’t. As for Mao, et al. we are talking about state worship.
Again, most of your post deserves to stand on its own.
I especially want to make this point though (again to benefit anyone that is reading):
Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” was mentioned. Anyone that has seen it, please ask yourself honestly, does he use the exact same dishonest tactics that Michael Moore uses in his films? The answer is of course, yes he does.
didn’t say hitler was an atheist, he was probably an occultist. but he threw out the bible, to make his own state religion…his own ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ just as the other leaders I mentioned. Once you throw off the constraints of God, well anything goes.
oh yeah asking Dawkins questions is dishonest and sneaky. sure.
yeah he’s one of the fundamentalist snake-handling crazy christians, ain’t he????
actually he’s jewish.
Right4life:
Concerning your bigotry: I am not concerned about your ignorance of science nor am I offended by it. I find it worrisome, and I worry about the future of science in America, but that’s it.
Your bigotry comes from the idea that I must be immoral because I don’t believe in “Gods.”
Those that are interested in fair debate and the actual truth:
I encourage you to seek out Dawkins’ reply to and comments on this movie. Do so in the same way you might search for the truth concerning a Michael Moore movie. You might be surprised.