More on Jindal..
Remember a few weeks ago when we told you about the creationists tendencies of Representative Bobby Jindal from Louisiana, who is now running for Governor? Well, now Talk2Action has very extensive piece detailing Jindal’s creationist ties:
Bobby Jindal participated in a televised gubernatorial forum in Louisiana on September 27, 2007, at which a journalist asked him whether he supports the teaching of intelligent design. Jindal’s answer clearly indicated that this Rhodes scholar and Brown University biology graduate does indeed support teaching creationism.
His position has not changed since he voiced such support when he ran for governor the first time in 2003. However, the striking aspect of his comments both then and now was his use of talking points that suggest his familiarity with the semantic strategy with which ID is being promoted by its proponents at the Discovery Institute, the headquarters of the ID movement.On September 27, 2007, after avoiding public events where he might be asked unanticipated questions, Louisiana gubernatorial candidate Bobby Jindal participated in a televised forum that was carried live by Louisiana Public Broadcasting (LPB).
In a segment in which each panelist was allowed to direct one question to a specific candidate, Baton Rouge Advocate columnist Carl Redman asked Jindal how his personal faith might influence his policies as governor on the issues of abortion, the teaching of intelligent design, and prayer at public meetings. Jindal addressed abortion and prayer but skipped intelligent design. Requesting time for a follow-up, Redman steered him back to that part of the question. Jindal’s response clearly indicated that he supports teaching intelligent design (ID) creationism in public schools (transcript below). However, the interesting aspect of his answer was that he seems to know the talking points and code language that ID creationists at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) use to promote ID. The Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative Seattle think tank, is the headquarters of the ID creationist movement. Jindal also used such talking points during his first race for governor four years ago when asked whether he supported teaching creationism.
well well is’t Jindal special!??!
isn’t
You mean Jindal got the super-secret, double-naught, decoder ring? The one that allows you to spout idiotic crap in secret code that the IDers have developed to counter act that whole nasty little “legality” thing?
Funny, Lynne. And they keep forgetting that it is Unconstitutional to teach creationism/ ID in the public schools.
hi dale, I got here early today just for you.
Proverbs 16
1 To man belong the plans of the heart,
but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
2 All a man’s ways seem innocent to him,
but motives are weighed by the LORD.
3 Commit to the LORD whatever you do,
and your plans will succeed.
4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends—
even the wicked for a day of disaster.
5 The LORD detests all the proud of heart.
Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.
6 Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for;
through the fear of the LORD a man avoids evil.
7 When a man’s ways are pleasing to the LORD,
he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.
8 Better a little with righteousness
than much gain with injustice.
9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps.
10 The lips of a king speak as an oracle,
and his mouth should not betray justice.
11 Honest scales and balances are from the LORD;
all the weights in the bag are of his making.
12 Kings detest wrongdoing,
for a throne is established through righteousness.
13 Kings take pleasure in honest lips;
they value a man who speaks the truth.
14 A king’s wrath is a messenger of death,
but a wise man will appease it.
15 When a king’s face brightens, it means life;
his favor is like a rain cloud in spring.
16 How much better to get wisdom than gold,
to choose understanding rather than silver!
17 The highway of the upright avoids evil;
he who guards his way guards his life.
18 Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall.
19 Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed
than to share plunder with the proud.
20 Whoever gives heed to instruction prospers,
and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.
21 The wise in heart are called discerning,
and pleasant words promote instruction. [a]
22 Understanding is a fountain of life to those who have it,
but folly brings punishment to fools.
23 A wise man’s heart guides his mouth,
and his lips promote instruction. [b]
24 Pleasant words are a honeycomb,
sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.
25 There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death.
26 The laborer’s appetite works for him;
his hunger drives him on.
27 A scoundrel plots evil,
and his speech is like a scorching fire.
28 A perverse man stirs up dissension,
and a gossip separates close friends.
29 A violent man entices his neighbor
and leads him down a path that is not good.
30 He who winks with his eye is plotting perversity;
he who purses his lips is bent on evil.
31 Gray hair is a crown of splendor;
it is attained by a righteous life.
32 Better a patient man than a warrior,
a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city.
33 The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD.
Experience is that marvelous thing that enables us to recognize a mistake when we see it again.
Unfortunately, CT, some people lack that ability.
CT I think she means you should stop braking the billcott
If the imagination exist why is there NO EVIDENCE.
for example,
Can Science Prove Intellect is Material?
by: Mark A. McNeil
The incredible accomplishments of science in recent centuries sometimes have the effect of causing people to think that science and its methods are able to solve every mystery of the human person and that human thought and experience are all reducible to material cause and effect relationships.
In this brief reflection, I would like to object to this position and argue that science is limited in its explanatory power. Additionally, I will suggest that there are strong reasons to believe there are facets of human experience that are fundamentally different from matter and its properties and therefore must be spiritual or immaterial.
What Do We Know?
Although rarely emphasized in the study of modern “science,” there are presuppositions assumed by scientists and non-scientists alike in their approach to reality. These approaches can be multiplied seemingly forever but can in fact be placed into several broad categories.
Human knowledge seems to begin in a flood of sensory data. Colors, shapes, sounds, textures all provide the experiences from which general ideas and conclusions drawn from them will emerge. What one concludes about the nature of the “world” of sensation will largely depend on the account of the knowing process itself that is accepted. Some have claimed that sensory knowledge itself is secondary in the discovery of “truth.” This is based on various observations that sense experience can be misinterpreted or that scientific interpretations of experience have often been misleading or erroneous although seemingly persuasive for long periods of time. On the other hand, there are other ways humans think that seem to ignore or at least abstract from sense experience that cause greater certitude and exhibit greater stability (e.g., math). This approach is often called Rationalism and may be seen in philosophers like Plato. The emphasis on non-sensory knowledge tends to result in a devaluation of sciences built on sense data.
Another “extreme” approach to human knowledge insists that all facets of human experience and knowledge derive from sense experience and that we need not think that any of our intellectual acts are anything more than objects of sense experience construed in a variety of ways. David Hume was perhaps the greatest of these Empiricists who denied that there is any need at all to suggest that knowledge is anything more than sense impressions variously arranged.
A third approach considers both of the above perspectives correct in a limited way but denies that either is a complete account of human knowledge. This approach, perhaps correctly labeled “dualism,” argues that human knowing is closely tied to sense experience but that it is able to go beyond sense experience to general concepts that do not directly correspond to anything “experienced.” Aristotle would be an example of this approach.
Perhaps a fourth approach can be identified and that would be Skepticism. There have always been persons who have seen the various problems associated with human knowledge and have essentially grown “sour” in the pursuit of answers. Their conclusion is that it is impossible for us to know the nature of our own knowledge and they then spend their time either ignoring the problem or casting doubt on those who defend one or another of the above positions.
Whatever position one takes, it is important to note that this position is not capable of “proof” from science. In other words, the “truth” about the nature of human knowledge must rest upon introspection and reflexive self-analysis and not from some external source or method of analysis. Perhaps one could find results of a scientific demonstration supportive of an already assumed position but it is not possible to scientifically prove a basic theory of knowledge in the modern sense of “scientific.”
It does not take much to show the truth of the preceding paragraph. Consider a Rationalist and an Empiricist in dialog. The Empiricist insists that the workability of science “proves” his approach is sound. The Rationalist, however, simply shows that the Empiricist is assuming his principles. If such an assumption were not made, the argument would disappear. Perhaps the results of a scientific test or procedure “work” or make sense very much like features of our dreams make sense but do not tell us anything about an external world existing apart from our own minds. For centuries, one might argue, men believed the world was flat. There was much empirical evidence to support such a position but it, of course, turned out to be wrong. Who’s to say that we will not equally discover ourselves in error? Also, how is it possible to show that the world of “sense” is not merely a projection of our own minds and that matter is not real at all?
I am not agreeing with the Rationalist here. My point is merely that one will find it very difficult to argue with one who has accepted contrary presuppositions unless he is able to go to a pre-scientific stage of philosophical reflection and show the inadequacies of another’s approach to knowledge itself.
.
.
.
.
Features of Human Experience Suggesting Immateriality
.
.
.
.
I would like to now suggest some features of human experience that every reader should be able to recognize and suggest ways in which these features argue for an explanation of human knowledge that requires more than matter or sense experience.
First, there is the issue of general concepts and scientific knowledge itself. It is not enough to say that the “brain” is able to explain human knowledge. One must show how a material organ is able to mysteriously reflect upon materiality. One must show how the human person is able to contemplate the nature of everything and not merely those things pertaining to my sense organs.
Take, for instance, the human eye. It has, as its proper objects, color and shape. The ear has for its proper object, sound. We may do the same with each of the sense powers. Once we finished with all the means by which humans seemingly apprehend the world about us, we will not have discovered any physical sense organ that has for its proper object being itself, love, and any object of scientific consideration. Science does not primarily focus on this man but rather on all men or humanness. In other words, the workings of science itself depend on the ability of the mind to move beyond the consideration of objects immediately available to the senses and to reflect upon the shared characteristics of all in a class or general group. No bodily organ is oriented towards all of a category or, better yet, everything. This is in fact, however, what the human mind is able to do. We are able to think about the nature of the brain. This ability to think about our bodily processes and, potentially, about everything and its nature, suggest we are in some respect distinct from any particular part of the material world. Particularity in the case of matter is restrictive while universality and unlimitedness suggest immateriality.
A second consideration in human experience pertains to the freedom of the will. We are all conscious of ourselves as self-determining creatures. We are conscious of our power to choose between “goods” or objects of desire placed before us. From this fact flows our sense of moral duty or obligation. Without it, our talk of morality and punishment for crimes done lose their force. Without freedom we can no more “condemn” a man or woman than we can condemn a lion for killing a man. Freedom is not only something of which we cannot doubt due to its immediate presence in our experience but it is also something of which we dare not doubt since it would destroy the very foundations of a just society.
The problem for the materialist or extreme view of science and its abilities to explain things, is that freedom and materialism are absolutely irreconcilable. Material cause and effect relationships are subject to science precisely because of their predictability. If we could not predict an effect based on a knowledge of causes in certain situations, science would cease. Science works on the presupposition that effects are necessary and that if one has sufficient knowledge, the effect is entirely predictable.
This position, usually called Determinism, reigns in the world of science on the level of human actions. Found in both “hard” and “soft” forms, scientists of all sorts are searching for “genes” and other such factors in order to “explain” human actions. This is entirely consistent with the scientific mentality, especially when it is convinced that everything is the result of matter in motion. There is no room for material causes producing entirely unexpected and “free” effects. Freedom has no meaning in this context.
Sometimes materialists will disagree here and suggest Quantum Physics as a possible source of hope. This is difficult to understand since the gist of the claim is that the randomness of quantum particles at a subatomic scale is a nice parallel for freedom. Randomness and unpredictability are not what we mean by “freedom,” however. To the contrary, I am not free if my actions are entirely random or, in every way, unpredictable. No, by freedom we mean an effect that is caused by my will and self-determination and therefore not random but that the effect is not necessarily caused. In other words, although my act was truly caused by me I truly could have done otherwise. That mysterious understanding of freedom, of which we are all conscious, is incompatible with scientific explanations.
.
.
.
Conclusion
.
.
.
In conclusion, I have suggested the claim that science is able to “prove” we are nothing but material creatures and that human thought and actions can be explained by material cause and effect relationships is unacceptable. It is unacceptable first, and more negatively, because it suggests a view of science that is truly beyond what a scientist can prove. In other words, it is not possible to show a priori that everything must be capable of a materialist interpretation. That must be proven and it cannot, on the most basic level, be proven since one’s approach to knowledge is more basic than the scientific method.
Secondly, the scientific assumptions themselves are not able to account for features of human experience of which we are all aware. We are able to wrap our minds about the entirety of reality and think in all-inclusive terms about facets of our universe that are not the immediate object of sense powers and therefore must belong to an “organ” or power that is capable of that kind of thought. Since the objects of thought I have in mind here are “universal” and therefore not limited to any one or even all material objects (shown by my ability to consider spiritual realities as well), the power considering such objects must be spiritual or immaterial since it must be commensurate with its objects.
Finally, human freedom, too, provides an ability of which I am immediately aware that is incompatible with a materialistic world-view. That this is the case is shown by any cursory look at the literature available on the subject. Human freedom is perhaps the first casualty of a consistent materialism. The only problem is that this assumption not only contradicts our immediate awareness of ourselves, but it also is most often made with the conviction that could only be the result of one assuming he has freely chosen the “right” position and you have chosen the “wrong” position. Right and wrong, however, are moral categories that lose all meaning in a universe of determinism and material causality where freedom is lost.
Scrolling right along…..is anyone watching Larry Craig being interviewed by Matt Lauer on NBC right now?
CT,
Actually, my wife turned on the TV and Larry Craig’s face appeared on the screen. We dove for cover and called for one of the children to come and change the channel lest our minds would rot to shit.
Here comes the story.
We also had magical fish for dinner last evening.
We ate them and they turned to shit.
Ok, so Craig’s whole argument is that the cop lied.
I would only say to certain persons that science does not prove anything that they have proven that they are not proven and so there is no proof of anything and especially no proof of some god lizard m fer sky king ..did i say m f’er
CT,
The reason the cop was there was because people who used that bathroom for pissing and shitting were grossed out and called the police to report that there were men in there doing untoward stuff.
Unfortunately, this whole thing reminds me of the Lewinsky scandal. This guy is soooo busted and he has convinced himself that he has no choice but to lie on national TV to try and save his marriage. Money says they NEVER screw again. Meanwhile, who really gives a damn what adults do with each other sexually as long as both are consenting? This guy has become a scapegoat for the Repukes. Anything, ANYTHING, to get the media off the subject of Iraq. I don’t care if Craig is gay or not. I CARE about this senseless waste of lives and money in the Middle East.
CT,
Hey, I just wanted to clear something up with you.
Was I dreaming or did the Injuns beat the Yankees? I cannot imagine that a scenario like that actually happened.
Can Science Prove the Existence of God? Plenty of Scientists have Tried
Two hundred years ago, the biologist William Paley published a huge book called Natural Theology. It contains detailed descriptions of hundreds of animals, birds, fish and plants — the carefully collated results of a lifetime spent studying and cataloguing nature. Its detail is staggering, and Dr Paley’s book remains a landmark in historical biology.
But he didn’t intend it as a work of science. In fact, Paley was setting out to demonstrate something quite different: his idea was to prove beyond any doubt that God exists.
The book starts with a simple parable. Imagine you’ve just found a watch in the middle of a field — one of those old-fashioned clockwork pocket watches, presumably. Now, what is it about the watch that makes it different from the stones and pebbles lying around?
Photo: freeimages.co.uk
The answer is design. It’s obvious that the watch has been carefully constructed by a human watchmaker. The wheels, pinions, coils and chains inside the watch’s metal casing are shaped and assembled with a specific purpose in mind: telling the time. If the parts had been different, or fitted together in different ways, it wouldn’t do anything of the sort.
The chances of a watch being constructed by blind chance are astronomically small. Where we have something that’s clearly been designed for a specific purpose, we can safely say that a Designer gave it that purpose. Where there’s a watch, Paley points out, there must be a watchmaker.
Now Paley invites us to draw the comparison between the watch and the world of nature. A fish’s eye is much larger and rounder than a mammal’s eye, with a crystalline lens that’s good at concentrating rays of light passed through water. As Paley wrote, “what plainer manifestation of design can there be than this difference?” Surely, if someone designed the watch, then by the same logic someone designed the fish? And the same goes for every other creature whose design is painstakingly described in Paley’s book.
Of course, Paley was hardly the first to come up with this idea. People throughout history have looked around them at the wonders of nature and intuitively asked themselves, “How else can we explain all this except by God?”
But these days there’s a problem. In the mid-19 century, Charles Darwin came along with an idea that changed the face of biology forever. His theory of evolution by natural selection did very nicely what Paley thought was impossible: it described how apparent design in nature can arise without any hint of a Designer. (Nature, to quote a modern-day Darwinian, is ‘the blind watchmaker’.)
Darwinism is no real threat to our faith. After all, the Genesis story can be illuminating and meaningful, even if it’s not literally true. But it is a problem for Paley, although he can’t be blamed — he was writing 50 years earlier than Darwin. So was he barking up the wrong tree?
Well, surely there’s more in the universe to be explained than the design of a fish’s eye? If we agree that we don’t need God to explain the design of life on Earth, even then there are some puzzles. For instance, scientists tell us that the universe itself looks ‘designed’, and Darwinism can’t explain that.
The universe contains life. But not just any old universe would allow life to develop in the first place. To get life, you first need spatial dimensions, matter, energy, chemistry, atoms, stars, planets, gravity (and. antigravity, as it happens). Luckily, our universe has all these things, and in precisely the right amounts to make it possible for life to develop. But without each of these key values being exactly as they are, there would be no atoms, no stars… no life. Can we really attribute the nature of the universe to coincidence? The odds against life are astronomical — a conservative estimate reckons the chance of generating a universe with just the right setup is about one in a billion billion. And yet — gasp — here we are!
So we’re forced to believe either that God exists, and He designed the universe in order to create human life, or that we owe our existence to an astronomically huge coincidence.
For a hardened atheist, the second option might look tempting. But think about it. Imagine that your next-door neighbour wins the lottery jackpot every single week for a year. Do you go on your merry way, thinking nothing of it? Maybe? (“Ah well, it’s an astronomically huge coincidence, but never mind!”) Well, what if, one day, you find out that your neighbour’s brother works in the Lottery office and is in charge of handing out prizes? Do you still go on your merry way, without suspecting a thing? Of course not. A much better explanation for your neighbour’s ‘winning streak’ presents itself — that the whole thing is a fix.
The situation with the universe is similar. I suppose it’s remotely possible that the universe is special ‘just by chance’, in the same way that it’s remotely possible that my neighbour could have won the lottery every week for a year just by being very, very, very lucky. But, as good scientists, we should prefer any alternative that doesn’t depend on such ridiculous coincidences. Dr Paley was a good scientist, so maybe he wasn’t so far wrong after all?
Toby Wardman
dale - I’m sorry, but my contract precludes me from saying anything that could be construed as negative regarding the above reference ball club from the city of New York.
Billcott
Billcott
Billcott
Billcott
Billcott
Billcott
Billcott
Billcott
I have been very interested in this “slippery slope” argument that is promoted in certain arguments.
I have been shy of subscribing to any :slippery slope” arguments.
The reason why I avoid slippery slope arguments is because they become slippery slopes.
Here is one of my fave slippery slopes.
We all decide that creationism should be taught in public schools as prescribed by bible literalists. Bug nose that concept grasshopper, there’s all these catholics out there that will drive your dick into the ground in a grand hurry.
Then we have the other sects of christianity positioning themselves to gain dominion. Look out. civil war is immenent.
CT,
As a die hard “fan,” do solemnly accept that explanation of your affection.
Billcott
Can Science Prove the Existence of God?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EED71139F932A25752C1A9659C8B63
/www.inplainsite.org/html/science_bible_error.html
Science and the Bible, By Gary F. Zeolla
…Francis Schaeffer explains the result of this synthesis:
When the Roman Church attacked Copernicus and Galileo, it was not because their teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo’s notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought the trial (Schaeffer, p.156).
Scrolling on by…….. for Craig, it’s not that he did what he did, not that he got caught doing it, but rather, he feels his mistake is that he pleaded guilty. Huh?????
dale, I know you missed me posting early like I am today, so, all of these have been for you buddy.
Christianity as a Foundation for Science
Loren Haarsma, Assistant Professor of Physics
http://www.calvin.edu/minds/vol01/issue04/lhaarsma_christian-foundation.pdf
Warning, this is NOT for the easily offended.
Warning, this is NOT for the easily offended.
Warning, this is NOT for the easily offended.
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Craig such resign, again.
BILLCOTT
BILLCOTT
BILLCOTT
BILLCOTT
BILLCOTT
Alert: Alert: Alert: Call To Action:::::
bill contends that nothing is contrary to the bible.
OK. Bring it.
I’m thinking cirrcular?
wow, i couldn’t get on the blog for a couple of minutes. there was this message to the webmaster for this site saying it had exceeded it’s CPUs, whatever that is.
Alert: Call To Action:
dalair thinks EVERYTHING is contrary to the bible.
btw, what’s a cirrcular???
did you mean circular???????????????????????????????????????????
Bill cott
Bill cott
Bill cott
Bill cott
Bill cott
Bill cott
Bill cott
Bill cott
“I will suggest that there are strong reasons to believe there are facets of human experience that are fundamentally different from matter and its properties and therefore must be spiritual or immaterial.”
This is stricltly opinion. He offers no evidence whatsoever. Crackpottery.
Thoughts and imaginations are chemical and electrical activity in the brain. There is no evidence for anything else. None.
Both of bill’s posts are old tired and worn out philosophies that are still trotted out by fundamentalists. The watchmaker story is abundantly refuted in the book, “The Blind Watchmaker.” by Dawkins. But one does not need the book to see that the watchmaker is a rejected opinion of philosophy. That is unless one is a brainwashed fundy that has not a clue as to how to think rationally. Fundys set aside rational thought and go with faith, which is believing in something for which there is no evidence.
Not only does evolution explain the complexity of life, it is also evidence against the existence of god.
You see, if a supernatural being engineered all the complexity, then it would have also been very complex and there is no plausible explanation for that.
If one says that there is a supernatural being of sufficient complexity that it designed the universe, and that requires no more explanation, then one is admitting that really odd and significant things can exist, unexplained, thus there is no need to believe in a designer.
Some people will just not admit what they don’t know. Religion didn’t happen so people could get to heaven, religion evolved as a control system.
Hi Dale,
Hope all is well with you.
You said regarding “fundys” that they are “believing in something for which there is no evidence.” I beg to differ. One only look to the the natural world to observe a wonderfully complex system (set within a universe, on a life sustaining planet, populated by numerous living beings) that is not built on chance or macro evolution, but is purposely-designed, engineered and sustained by a Creator of unimaginable power and intelligence.
You said that “Not only does evolution explain the complexity of life, it is also evidence against the existence of god.”
Dale I would suggest to you that Darwin’s theory of evolution explains only small portion of the complexity of life. There is so much more we learn every year. Imagine what we will know in another 100 years. I would bet you a sllver dollar that Darwin would reject the notion that his observations and writings are solid evidence against the existence of God. As we have discussed many times in the past at this blog, neither Darwin nor any other scientist, knows or can confidently explain the beginnings of life on this earth.
All arguments from incredulity jumper. There is no evidence or need for a magical sky king. You are deluded. Complexity does not require design outside of Nature. The intricate shapes of snowflakes have no other designer than the laws of Nature. The same applies for everything else. So until you or anyone else can show how your imaginary deity and his magic are actual real things, then go take your doubt into a classroom and actually LEARN about how reality really works…..instead of just shrugging your shoulders steeped in wonderment and fantasizing about how you wish things worked.
Mark,
I’m fine, thanks!
Yeah, we’ve been there before. Some have the need for a god to bridge the knowlege gap, and some do not.
It is like all other emotions, and far be it for me to deny anyone their emotional attachment to philosophical concepts.
This makes me smile….
“I’ve not done anything for which I should have to step aside,…”
Ummm…..ooops.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/17/oru.leave/index.html
I’m not convinced of any wrong doing. But if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it’s probably one of these high-and-mighty delusional power-mongers falling on their face.
If it’s any consolation, at least he’s not being accused of felating male callers and snorting meth. But then again, maybe it’s his wife who is the grit-dog. Rumors are that she had “revealing” conversations with the male students.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
dale Says:
Some have the need for a god to bridge the knowlege gap, and some do not.
And that, my friend, sums it up quite nicely; for the time being. Thanx
Alex,
As you said, the snowflake is a product of the laws of nature. Indeed you are right. My question for you and everyone else on this board is simple - who created and implemented the laws of nature? Did they “poof” come from nothing? Of course not. That goes against all reason.
Hey, Mark, you troublemaker!
You will be an old dried up skeleton with cobwebs before anyone is going to bite on that one!
It is merely something that we do not yet understand.
Alex, ***laughing*** Larry is such a phoney!
Mark,
If one says that there is a supernatural being of sufficient complexity that it designed the universe, and that requires no more explanation, then one is admitting that really odd and significant things can exist, unexplained, thus there is no need to believe in a designer.
Now we can shut down the blog and go get shit faced.
Dale,
Who created and implemented the laws of nature?
Its an interesting question. After doing a basic google search its apparent to me that their lots to learn about this subject - Laws of Nature, Natural law, Scientific Law.
Ah, it makes it easier if you just start with Genesis 1:1
Alex, hey , wait-a-minute. grit-dog? Too funny!
Too easy, Mark, too easy….but..nice try!
“…who created and implemented the laws of nature? Did they “poof” come from nothing? Of course not. ”
Your arrogance causes you to presume to know everything about Nature so that you can draw the conclusion that it can’t be self-caused! What, in your vast understanding of reality, causes you to think that Nature can’t be self-caused or just always existed? What makes you think it was “created”.
You assert your deity is self-caused…so why can’t Nature be self-caused? Or if you assert that your deity has always existed, then why can’t Nature have always existed? You’ve simply tried to answer a mystery by creating another mystery.
Your “logic” is not logic jumper….it is called a false-dilemma. But I sincerely doubt you even comprehend my honest questioning of your logic.
Shots fired!
Mark, let’s just skip to Genesis 2 where all the controversy starts……
jumper, your assertion:
“That goes against all reason.”
Is completely BASELESS. There is absolutely NOTHING you can provide to give that claim ANY substance. In order to do so, you would pretty much have to have a complete understanding of reality. I truly doubt you have the capacity to contemplate your naval-lint.
So if you can’t explain where your naval-lint came from, does it mean that your diety created it in place or did it create it somewhere else and place it there while you were eating?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Mark Jumper Says:
My question for you and everyone else on this board is simple - who created and implemented the laws of nature?
Why does there HAVE to be a “who?”
answer: Because Horton heard it.
Yes, one of the mysteries of modern mankind. Naval lint.
I believe that invisible entities create the lint “en route” to the belly button.
Ok, ya gotta love this.
By CHRISTINE SIMMONS,AP
Posted: 2007-10-17 14:50:50
Vice President Dick Cheney is close enough to Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama to call him “cousin.”
Eighth cousin, that is.
According to her spokeswoman, Sen. Obama, D-Ill., is a descendent of Mareen Duvall. This French Huguenot’s son married the granddaughter of a Richard Cheney, who arrived in Maryland in the late 1650’s from England, said Ginny Justice, a spokeswoman for Lynne Cheney.
CT,
There might be 50 americans that can trace their actual roots. Geneology is based on totally flawed data.
Look at it like this: There are surrogate mothers. There are also surrogate fathers. They are called milk men.
DNA may help eventually, but nobody knows who their grandfather really is let alone eight generations. It only takes one to produce a totally bastardized family tree.
dang, dale. do you always have to be so damn serious.
BTW, I have, in my possession, documents that trace me and my brother all the way back to my father….so there.
Proverbs 17
1 Better a dry crust with peace and quiet
than a house full of feasting, [a] with strife.
2 A wise servant will rule over a disgraceful son,
and will share the inheritance as one of the brothers.
3 The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold,
but the LORD tests the heart.
4 A wicked man listens to evil lips;
a liar pays attention to a malicious tongue.
5 He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished.
6 Children’s children are a crown to the aged,
and parents are the pride of their children.
7 Arrogant [b] lips are unsuited to a fool—
how much worse lying lips to a ruler!
8 A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it;
wherever he turns, he succeeds.
9 He who covers over an offense promotes love,
but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends.
10 A rebuke impresses a man of discernment
more than a hundred lashes a fool.
11 An evil man is bent only on rebellion;
a merciless official will be sent against him.
12 Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs
than a fool in his folly.
13 If a man pays back evil for good,
evil will never leave his house.
14 Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam;
so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.
15 Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—
the LORD detests them both.
16 Of what use is money in the hand of a fool,
since he has no desire to get wisdom?
17 A friend loves at all times,
and a brother is born for adversity.
18 A man lacking in judgment strikes hands in pledge
and puts up security for his neighbor.
19 He who loves a quarrel loves sin;
he who builds a high gate invites destruction.
20 A man of perverse heart does not prosper;
he whose tongue is deceitful falls into trouble.
21 To have a fool for a son brings grief;
there is no joy for the father of a fool.
22 A cheerful heart is good medicine,
but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.
23 A wicked man accepts a bribe in secret
to pervert the course of justice.
24 A discerning man keeps wisdom in view,
but a fool’s eyes wander to the ends of the earth.
25 A foolish son brings grief to his father
and bitterness to the one who bore him.
26 It is not good to punish an innocent man,
or to flog officials for their integrity.
27 A man of knowledge uses words with restraint,
and a man of understanding is even-tempered.
28 Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent,
and discerning if he holds his tongue.
bill cott
bill cott
bill cott
bill cott
bill cott
bill cott
bill cott
bill cott
bill cottbill cott
bill cott
Verse of the day
“The LORD confides in those who fear him; he makes his covenant known to them. My eyes are ever on the LORD, for only he will release my feet from the snare.”- Psalm 25:14-15
Mukasey Defends Warrantless Surveillance for Spying
By James Rowley and Robert Schmidt
Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) — Attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey told lawmakers the U.S. Constitution authorizes the president to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists to gather intelligence without getting a court warrant.
Mukasey was questioned at Senate confirmation hearings about the legality of the terrorist surveillance President George W. Bush ordered after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Congress is debating legislation to require more court supervision for the eavesdropping on suspected terrorists using U.S. telecommunications facilities.
“I think he would have authority to act,'’ Mukasey said when asked about the president’s powers to collect enemy intelligence. “The Fourth Amendment bars unreasonable searches'’ and “may well be much more flexible'’ about intelligence collection than the “gathering of evidence for criminal cases,'’ he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aH3vqr743dFw&refer=home
Oct 17, 11:09 PM EDT
Richard Roberts Asks ORU Board for Leave
By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS
Associated Press Writer
TULSA, Okla. (AP) — Oral Roberts University President Richard Roberts asked for and was granted a leave of absence Wednesday amid accusations of lavish spending at donors’ expense and illegal involvement in a political campaign.
The 58-year-old son of the evangelist who founded the school said he would continue in his role as chairman and chief executive of Oral Roberts Ministries, and decried what he said were untrue allegations.
“I don’t know how long this leave of absence will last, but I fully trust the members of the Board of Regents,” Roberts said in a news release issued by the university. “I pray and believe that in God’s timing, and when the Board feels that it is appropriate, I will be back at my post as president.”
An Oct. 2 lawsuit filed by three former ORU professors says they were wrongfully dismissed and accuses Roberts of misspending at donors’ expense, including numerous home remodels and a senior trip to the Bahamas for one daughter on the ministry’s dime.
It also accuses Roberts of illegal involvement in a local political campaign, which would jeopardize the university’s nonprofit status.
The professors say they were forced out after turning over this information to the ORU Board of Regents.
The professors’ suit was amended last week to include new allegations that documents were shredded and destroyed days after the initial lawsuit was filed, and hours after ORU and Richard Roberts fired the school’s comptroller.
The amended complaint also included an internal ministry report, titled “Scandal Vulnerability Assessment,” documenting allegations of misconduct by the university and the Roberts family. Only a partial report was included in the Oct. 2 lawsuit.
The more detailed account alleges Richard Roberts’ wife, Lindsay, spent the night in the ORU guest house with an underage male “on nine separate occasions,” and was photographed 29 times with an underage male in her sports car, among other allegations.
The internal report was prepared by Stephanie Cantees, Richard Roberts’ sister-in-law. An ORU spokesman said Cantees would not comment on the report.
An ORU student repairing Cantees’ laptop discovered the document and later provided a copy to one of the dismissed professors.
In a statement issued Saturday, Lindsay Roberts said, “I live my life in a morally upright manner and throughout my marriage have never, ever engaged in any sexual behavior with any man outside of my marriage as the accusations imply.”
Parents Use Religion to Avoid Vaccines
By STEVE LeBLANC
Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) — Sabrina Rahim doesn’t practice any particular faith, but she had no problem signing a letter declaring that because of her deeply held religious beliefs, her 4-year-old son should be exempt from the vaccinations required to enter preschool.
She is among a small but growing number of parents around the country who are claiming religious exemptions to avoid vaccinating their children when the real reason may be skepticism of the shots or concern they can cause other illnesses. Some of these parents say they are being forced to lie because of the way the vaccination laws are written in their states.
“It’s misleading,” Rahim admitted, but she said she fears that earlier vaccinations may be to blame for her son’s autism. “I find it very troubling, but for my son’s safety, I feel this is the only option we have.
read more here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VACCINE_SKEPTICS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
Louisiana senator and whoremonger David Vitter has inserted an earmark into an appropriations bill that would give federal money to a fundie group that has a history of trying to push the subject of creationism in schools. Here’s an article from Americans United…
http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=sb5txevg52.app1b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9431&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241
http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/cue-the-zombie-bunny.html
dale, funny. That discrepencies appear in the four gospels stories is understandable given that there were different authors, each of whom wrote their versions years after the events they describe. What galls me are those that insist the Bible is the inerrant WORD OF GOD and worthy of blind acquiescence. Keep it real, folks. It’s the world’s most popular myth. Beats the Greek myths by miles; both of which are full of morality plays. Of course, they are not the only sources of these kinds of stories and lessons. If religious fundies (Christian, Muslim, whatever) could learn to keep things in perspective, we might be able to progress. Aren’t there far more pressing issues like access to clean water, food, shelter, education and personal security?????
C.T.,
You asked - “Aren’t there far more pressing issues like access to clean water, food, shelter, education and personal security????”
All of these things are important and critical to the well being of an individual. They are issues of great concern because some folks lack these basics of life. However, there are some who believe that physical death is not the end of life and spiritual matters are of more consequence in the long-term and they to are pressing issues.
In one of my favorite movies, Gladiator, actor Russell Crowe plays a Roman military General named Maximus Decimus Meridius. Just before leading the horse-mounted calvary into battle he tells his officers, “What we do in life echoes in eternity”. When I heard this the first time I about fell out of my chair. What a statement. It directly eludes to my Christian beliefs and points to the eternal nature of all human souls.
Marj - why am I not surprised that you would compare the Bible to a fictional movie?
Regardless, if you are so concerned about your afterlife, may I suggest you get your butt off this site, and go do something that will get you through those “pearly gates” you love to believe in. Surely you don’t believe your quasi-evangelizing on this site are going to get you a pass.
The fact that you could sit at your computer and type that you believe that spiritual matters are of more consequence than finding ways to get clean water, food, shelter and security to the masses of starving people on this planet (as we speak) is proof that you are just as vile as those that collected billions of dollars in tax-free tithes and offerings only to use them to build grand cathedrals filled with solid gold relics for the purpose of giving glory to the sky king. How low can you go, man?
You are parroting the system that says, convert the heathens by any means necessary. They’re going to die anyway, but at least they’ll go to heaven as long as they accept Jesus as their saviour. Dude, that is sick.
C.T.,
The idea that one can “go do something that will get you through those “pearly gates” reveals your ignorance or misunderstanding of Christian theology. There is nothing I can do to get me “through those pearly gates”. What Jesus did at Calvary is the ONLY thing that will get a person through the “pearly gates”.
Correcting your mis-interpretation of my post, spiritual matters are of more consequence in the long-term as they determine your eternal destiny. There is no substitute for working to provide for our fellow man. Jesus clearly taught that when we are aware of another persons need and we have the means and ability to meet that need, we must act.
BTW, the tax free tithes and offerings gathered in Christian churches in this country do more for the starving masses in this world than any other entity on the face of the planet. You’ve got a grossly mis-informed view of the Christian church. How low can you go, man?
Marj, fyi, the pearly reference was purely tongue-in-cheek. I know YOU believe in the whole redemption thing. Whatever. My point (which you reinforce so nicely) is that religious fundies put too much energy into perpetrating their myth and not enough into making the world a better place. BTW, the private sector gives billions and billions to relief charities every single year. Churches don’t have the corner on giving, but they sure do a good job of taking. “Send your love donation to….”
As far as your eternal destiny is concerned — you’re only grasping at straws — you have no proof of what you choose to believe. That you believe it is moot. Believe away. Again, my point is that fundies spend too much energy trying to convince others that they have the inside scoop on spiritual matters and not enough energy on “works” - thus, rendering their faith, dead.
C Teeny, my point would be that the atheists spend too much time and energy trying to convince Christians that the atheists have the inside scoop on spiritual matters.
Mark,
Settle down.
How many times do we have to do this before I say to you and you say to me:
I hope you are well
And i hope your exulted religious beliefs arewell
Serving you well
My situation is well
Just one thing though, as well,
Do not even think about teaching your irrational beliefs…well…you know…
In our public schools as well.
What is wrong with this picture?
I am very, very sorry to do this; and I may become a pariah, but why do moderate christians put up with this crackpottery?
I like moderate emotional feelings as much as the next guy, but each of us have to reach our own personal toleration of mythical rhetoric when their own faith shows that to be intrinsically flawed.
Mark,
Sincerely,
I would work beside you on any occasion. You have stated some Drop Dead Arguments over our time, and we have duly wrstled over them, and have found that certain personal belief systems are not paramount to developing a good interpersonal relationship, given the chance, over time, eh?
America is NOT a religion free zone!
“Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand.”
-Frederick the Great
Dale,
I know that my belief in the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith are not held by all. I feel no animosity towards those who don’t believe what I believe. I find all people interesting.
I went a Wild Game Dinner at a large industrial contracting company this evening in LaPorte, Texas (industrial suburb of Houston on Galveston Bay). They fed about 150 guests from various refineries and chemical plants located along the Houston Ship Channel. They served beef brisket, venison, cajun jambalaya, venison sausage, shrimp, oysters, fish and fried alligator. I met some guys from a very large engineering / field services firm. They said that the supply of labor in various crafts is getting tighter and welders are in short supply. When the large refinery expansion begins at Motiva in Port Arthur, Texas this spring the labor market will become tighter than ever before. Craft wages are going to really escalate.
Sounds like fun, Mark. That area is a hotbed of activity! Job security!
Mark,
I have a nephew doing some welding in Georgia. He’s making good money. I hesitatie to steer him toward refinery work because of the potential for disaster. I am sure he is aware of the job market over there anyway.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Mark Jumper Says:
I know that my belief in the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith are not held by all. I feel no animosity towards those who don’t believe what I believe. I find all people interesting.
May I slightly disagree, or perhaps modify your statement to fit my view.
I feel no animosity towards those who don’t believe as I believe. I find all people and their views worthy of respect because they have been created in the image of God and are fully deserving of my consideration.
What a bunch of pretentious bullshit. Get real.
More Proverbs of Solomon
1 These are more proverbs of Solomon, copied by the men of Hezekiah king of Judah:
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
3 As the heavens are high and the earth is deep,
so the hearts of kings are unsearchable.
4 Remove the dross from the silver,
and out comes material for [a] the silversmith;
5 remove the wicked from the king’s presence,
and his throne will be established through righteousness.
6 Do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence,
and do not claim a place among great men;
7 it is better for him to say to you, “Come up here,”
than for him to humiliate you before a nobleman.
What you have seen with your eyes
8 do not bring [b] hastily to court,
for what will you do in the end
if your neighbor puts you to shame?
9 If you argue your case with a neighbor,
do not betray another man’s confidence,
10 or he who hears it may shame you
and you will never lose your bad reputation.
11 A word aptly spoken
is like apples of gold in settings of silver.
12 Like an earring of gold or an ornament of fine gold
is a wise man’s rebuke to a listening ear.
13 Like the coolness of snow at harvest time
is a trustworthy messenger to those who send him;
he refreshes the spirit of his masters.
14 Like clouds and wind without rain
is a man who boasts of gifts he does not give.
15 Through patience a ruler can be persuaded,
and a gentle tongue can break a bone.
16 If you find honey, eat just enough—
too much of it, and you will vomit.
17 Seldom set foot in your neighbor’s house—
too much of you, and he will hate you.
18 Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow
is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor.
19 Like a bad tooth or a lame foot
is reliance on the unfaithful in times of trouble.
20 Like one who takes away a garment on a cold day,
or like vinegar poured on soda,
is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.
21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.
23 As a north wind brings rain,
so a sly tongue brings angry looks.
24 Better to live on a corner of the roof
than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.
25 Like cold water to a weary soul
is good news from a distant land.
26 Like a muddied spring or a polluted well
is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked.
27 It is not good to eat too much honey,
nor is it honorable to seek one’s own honor.
28 Like a city whose walls are broken down
is a man who lacks self-control.
16 If you find honey, eat just enough—
too much of it, and you will vomit.
[…] Bobby Jindal’s recent victory to become Louiana’s Governor has gained national media attention. As we’ve told you in the past, Jindal has not been shy about his creationist leanings. So it’s not surprising that tucked away in the many articles about Jindal’s success are not insigificant paragraphs about his desire to see creationism taught in schools. Washington PostDavid Broder writes: Jindal campaigned as a conservative reformer, saying he wanted to pass strict ethics rules for the notoriously out-of-bounds Legislature but vowing also to spur business growth and open classrooms to the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution. […]
dale, thanks for link
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=e10543891fd2e7277d15
smug turd
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=e10543891fd2e7277d15
it is still a great link.
piss off, bill
Ct is popeaphobic and CHRISTIPHOBIC. how sad.
Piss off, little bill.
Ct are you trying to be the last one to post on each thread. ha ha
Proverbs 16
3 Commit to the LORD whatever you do,
and your plans will succeed.
the lord is on my side, bill. you will not have the last word.