Click here to read about atheist radio on Air America.
It is someone's 1st Amendment right, and I defend that right. However, to say that the left has no animosity toward Christianity is just plain stupid.
I counter this with what I was going to post today before I saw this article. It came in an email from friend, and it attributed to Paul Harvey. I have my doubts about that simply from listening to him over the years, but the exact author is not relevant. The theme and meaning of the piece is right on target with what we espouse, and I post it edited for your enjoyment.
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for
singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I
didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his
Theory of Evolution
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what' s the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on
Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian
churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you
expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone
Pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in
Rome...
But what about the atheists? It's another argument.
What about them? [Robert’s Note: I am constantly flummoxed by one who can be offended by something that one does not believe]
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the
Collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a
Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession
stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell
thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at
a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our
courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught
us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us
to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are
telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well ... just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that one
or two who scream loud enough to be heard know that the vast majority doesn't
care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them that
you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you
don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is
your right, and we will honor your right . But by golly, you are no longer
going to take our rights away. We are fighting back.... and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce Him. God
bless America... despite all her faults, she is still the greatest nation of
all.
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray
and worship God.
Keep looking up.
You Are Among The Elite!
Friday, October 12, 2007
...But There Is No Assault On Religion From The Left
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 Posts From Readers:
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on
Christian principles.
Ah, that old chestnut...I'm almost growing fond of it.
you're right, the author doesn't matter as far as the views espoused are concerned - i agree with them wholeheartedly. however, i think we should all endeavor to give credit where it is due.
this piece is the work of nick gholson, a sports writer from wichita falls, tx. check out the whole story here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/prayer.asp
nice digs you have here. thanks for dropping by my place - i'll definitely be back!
Welcome again Heidi, and thank you for the reference. I try to get it right and be accurate, but on occasion I would rather post and do my research later.
Please drop by as often as you wish. We don't have anything fancy here, just a bunch of folks who sit around the cracker barrel and chat.
Yes, this needs to be said. The extreme left is really attacking people of faith, it really is getting old.
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.
The theory of evolution is not religious doctrine or religious thought. It is a scientific theory that is accepted all over the enlightened world. It is NOT a religious doctrine.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
Then I, as a nonbeliever, watching a football game on publicly supported property, has the right to ask for equal time to thank the coach of the football team and to state that football games are won by the talent of the players and not by some invisible sky dweller blessing the players. The Constitution implies when it comes to publicly supported activities, one religion cannot be favored over another. If you demand a Christian prayer on public property, then you have to allow a Hindu, Jainist, or nonbeliever statement too.
So what' s the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
What if someone asks that a Hindu diety (there are hundreds) watch over the players, or a Satanic cult? The government cannot favor one religion over another. If this game takes place on tax-supported property, then ALL cults and religions have the right to be represented, not just Christians. That is the law.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles.
This country is founded on the Constitution which begins with “We the people…” There is no mention of god or any god’s laws in the Constitution. None. This claim is ignorant and incorrect.
According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
The Constitution was set up to defend against the tyranny of the majority. And the Constitution does not favor ANY religion, despite what this uninformed person says.
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer.
Jerusalem has Christian, Muslim and Jewish holy shrines. Bad example. But if the ignorant person who wrote that said Tel Aviv, then the answer would be that Israel is a RELIGIOUS state. The state religion is Judaism. The US DOES NOT HAVE A STATE RELIGION, despite what people who are ignorant say.
The examples about Muslim countries is inane. If you don’t adhere to Islam in a Muslim country, you are considered an infidel and are subject to death.
But what about the atheists? It's another argument.
What about them? [Robert’s Note: I am constantly flummoxed by one who can be offended by something that one does not believe] Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the Collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concessionstand. Call your lawyer!
Okay. You want nonbelievers to “humor” you for 30 seconds? Fine. Then you MUST hear the nonbeliever’s response to your prayers. In this country, all religions are equal and even nonbelievers have the right to be heard. You want to pray for 30 seconds on taxpayer funded property? Then I want to have the same freedom for 30 seconds to say that prayer is useless. Or invite a Jainist to give a blessing. This country does not honor one religion or a nonbeliever over any other.
Shaw, just when I thought there was some hope for intelligent debate, you blow it. Or as John Boy and Billy, those sage southern philosphers say: Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talking!
The Constitution says nothing of what you have said. It DOES NOT say that the government cannot favor one over the other, nor does it say taht all religions must be given equal time. It says the government cannot establish a religion, meaning that the government cannot have an official state religion as was the Church of England when the Constitution was written. It also says that the government cannot be allowed to prevent the free exercise of religion. It does not say a single dad blamed word about keeping people free OF religion.
Unfortunately, those like you who ignore the history of the Constitution, and support judicial law making have bastardized the Constitution.
One day the trees of liberty will again be watered, and truth restored.
Here you go again with fictitous assertions. There is no right to be heard on the U.S. Constitution. Even the msot liberal courts have never gone that far.
Your statement that not adhering to Islam in Muslim countries results in a death penalty is nonsense. I have spent a considerable amount of time in Muslim countries and have ben reieved with graciousness and respect.
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
That’s because the person who wrote this has no understanding about the establishment clause in the Constitution.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
How is a Christian stripped of his/her rights?
They may pray anywhere, anytime, and as many times a day as they wish. To themselves. They can go to churches without any fear and pray, sing and teach religion. They can build as many churches and religious schools as they wish, They can listen to religion on the teevee and radio. They may buy as many books as they want about the Rapture or any other aspect of their religion. They read the Bible in any strange city they visit in this country. They can proclaim their love of their Savior on every street corner in this country without fear of punishment. They are free to tell everyone and anyone they meet that they are a practicing Christian, without fear of punishment. The only thing we ask is not to do all of this ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY OR WITH GOVERNMENT FUNDS. Any PRIVATELY FUNDED school, college, university, hospital, company, etc. can say Christian prayers every day all day long. The just can’t do it on taxpayer supported institutions or property when those taxpayers may not share their Christianity. What more do you want?
Our parents and grandparents taughtus to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells usto pray without ceasing. Now a handful of peo ple an d their lawyers are
telling us to cease praying.
Bullcrap! Christians are free to pray in their homes before meals, and before they go to sleep. They are free to pray all day long, every day of the year. Where has it happened in this country where someone comes into their homes and stops that? I would like to see evidence of Christians being taken out of their homes and churches and charged with violating the law. This is pure bullcrap! No one. NO ONE has ordered Christians to stop praying. This is a specious, dishonest argument. I’ll state it again: You cannot force prayers to your Christian god on taxpayer supported property. Because other people of other religions or NO religion contribute to that taxpayer property. Why can’t you grasp this simple concept? If you’re not praying, it’s because you made a personal decision based on ignorance.
It does not say a single dad blamed word about keeping people free OF religion.
Whre did I say that? I'd like you to copy and paste that.
I state again that the government cannot FAVOR one religion over another. There is nothing in my posts about NO religion.
Your statement that not adhering to Islam in Muslim countries results in a death penalty is nonsense. I have spent a considerable amount of time in Muslim countries and have ben reieved with graciousness and respect.
You were a visitor, not a citizen . Have you forgotten about the man in Afghanistan who was threatened with death because he converted to Christianity? He had to be secretly taken out of the country before he was killed by the Taliban.
"The theory of evolution is not religious doctrine or religious thought. It is a scientific theory that is accepted all over the enlightened world. It is NOT a religious doctrine."
The “theory” of evolution is in fact a “theory” and not a “fact”, I don’t see what the problem is if one takes exception to the popular accepted “THEORY”.
To dj black adam,
If you looked up the definition of scientific theory, you'd find this:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable.
You were obviously not taught the difference between the two definitions of the word "theory" while you were in school.
Evolution is NOT "testable". There are no verifiable tests, and there are huge gaps in the "theory". One large gap is the "Piltdown Man" portion of evolution. This fraudulent "find" was accepted for some time.
Darwinism is no more a fact that can be proven than creation.
Shaw:
No matter how many words you add to "we can't prove it" you still can't "prove it". Guess you haven't spent enough time learning basic contextual grammar or logical syntax. Facts are "facts", theories are "theories", quite simple really, for example water IS h2o FACT, Evolution is a THEORY, no matter how supported, it is a THEORY.
You people are funny.
god may not be mentioned by name in the constitution, but in our declaration of independence the author and signators stated "a firm reliance on divine Providence". divine providence as in god of whom the founding fathers by and large DID believe in in the christian tradition.
in fact, in a 1798 address to the military, john adams said "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
two years earlier in his farewell address, george washington said "Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pilliars of human happiness."
and there are other quotes as well. i defy you to find a quote from one of our founding fathers decrying the display of any religion on or off of public property.
if the intention of our constitution was to disallow (or demand equal time for all) religion on tax/public property why do both congress and the supreme court start each day with a publicly paid for CHRISTIAN minister?
yeah, that sounds like our founding fathers didn't consider this to be a christian nation. if you tell people "you can't pray in a public building, or display a cross, or..." then you are prohibiting the free excercise of religion and thus stepping on the first amendment.
That’s because the person who wrote this has no understanding about the establishment clause in the Constitution
Neither do you, apparently.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
There's your "Establishment Clause", Shaw. Let's break that down shall we?
"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion"
SHALL MAKE NO LAW! OK "Mr. Calleverybodyignorant", show me one law. Show me one! One law, Shaw...just one and I'll go away. One law in 230 years where Congress has made a law "establishing a religion". While you're digging for that buried treasure, let's analyze the 2nd of the two clauses commonly referred to as the "Free Exercise Clause". Ready?
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
FREE EXERCISE! Back to you "Mr. Ad Hominem." Show me how for example, prohibiting the FCA from holding a meeting where a Christian prayer is offered on school grounds is not "prohibitive" under the guidance of this clause.
"There is no mention of god or any god’s laws in the Constitution. None. This claim is ignorant and incorrect."
None you say! You sure about that, Shaw? I mean since you are so convinced that everyone else here is ignorant (you use that word quite often). You sure there's no mention of God in the Constitution? Wanna bet? Do you?
Article. VII. United States Constitution
"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"
Whoa! Lemme read that again. I was sure there was no reference to a supreme being in the Constitution of the United States. Shaw told me so! What does that say there, Shaw? "In the year of our buddy Shaw?" No. "In the year of secularism?" No. "In the year of the artist formerly known as 'GOD'?" NO. I believe it says "OUR LORD". Who's Lord? OUR LORD. Do you think there would have been any confusion about the date had the words "In the year of our Lord" not been included? Do you think someone might have mistakenly concluded that the article was written on Sept, 17 1787 B.C.??
Careful with who you call "Ignorant" Shaw. Your words fall on YOU all too often.
Wadical, just when I think I might be smarter than the average bear, someone comes along and douses me with ice cold water.
I am totally speechless. I have read the entire Constitution. I have undergrad Constitutional Law, I have had grad school Constitutional Law x 2. Apparently, I have never once in my life read that entire sentence.
It is only those with a paticular agenda and an animous toward Christians that ignore history - not just ours, but the history of Europe as well. In doing so they can rationalize anythign they wish in that vacuum.
It is only in Christianty and Judaism, unless I am mistaken, that references God with the pronoun Lord.
A very sincere and applause-driven thanks.
Mentioning "in the year of our Lord" in the dating of the Constitution does not mean that any of the articles or amendments contained therein are predicated on religious laws.
It acknowledges only that in 1789, AD was the common ways of dating documents. Period. And now that has changed.
To the poster who mentioned the DoI. Our laws are not predicated on the DoI. It was a document that listed the grievences against the king and proclaimed our break with England and its tyrant. The fact that many of our Founding Fathers were Deists doesn't mean that this country was founded on Christian laws. It wasn't.
As to all of you who mock evolution as "only a theory," my only reaction is to shake my head and feel profound pity. And walk away.
Robert, I'm truly surprised to read your statements about evolution from you. Evolution is accepted by a vast and overwhelming majority of scientists and educated people and people who are devout religionists.
I'm not going to argue this point anymore than I would have argued with someone from the 17th century who insisted that the earth was the center of the universe because the Bible said so.
Creationism is the modern manifestation of a long-standing conflict between science and religion in Western Civilization. Prior to science, and in all non-scientific cultures, myths were the only viable explanations for a myriad of natural phenomena, and these myths became incorporated into diverse religious beliefs. Following the rise and spread of science, where ideas are tested against nature rather than being decided by religious authority and sacred texts, many phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural (disease, genetic defects, lightning, blights and plagues, epilepsy, eclipses, comets, mental illness, etc.) became known to have natural causes and explanations. Recognizing this, the Catholic Church finally admitted, after 451 years, that Galileo was correct; the Earth was not the unmoving center of the Universe. Mental illness, birth defects, and disease are no longer considered the mark of evil or of God’s displeasure or punishment. Epileptics and people intoxicated by ergot-infected rye are no longer burned at the stake as witches. As natural causes were discovered and understood, religious authorities were forced to alter long-held positions in the face of growing scientific knowledge. This does not mean science has disproved the existence of the supernatural. The methodology of science only deals with the material world.
Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. Such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes.
"As to all of you who mock evolution as "only a theory," my only reaction is to shake my head and feel profound pity. And walk away."
(sigh)....LIAR! If not, prove it! Walk away already! You didn't say that no articles and amendments were predicated on religious laws. You said...and I quote: "There is no mention of god or any god’s laws in the Constitution. None. This claim is ignorant and incorrect." That's what you said. You also called two people in this thread "ignorant". My point to you is that you are quick with the tongue and slow with the brain. You don't think before you speak and you do so with all the authority of a GOD. You aren't God. I don't even think you're that smart. You can't see the folly and the futility of attacking ad hominem and the discredit it does to your argument yet you continue to do it. You've done it time and time again both on this site and others. You? Pity? Pity who...US? NO...it is we who pity you.
"I'm not going to argue this point anymore than I would have argued with someone from the 17th century who insisted that the earth was the center of the universe because the Bible said so."
Promise??
BTW, Please reference Biblical verse stating the earth is the center of the Universe. Don't confuse what the Catholic Church says or said to be what the Bible says. Again you bust off with quick fire statements that are factually incorrect. You amaze me. Seriously, you do.
"It acknowledges only that in 1789, AD was the common ways of dating documents. Period. And now that has changed."
Common you say? Hmmm. Why then was the Declaration of Independence, penned just 11 years earlier not dated in a similar fashion?
@ Shaw:
You wrote: "As to all of you who mock evolution as "only a theory," my only reaction is to shake my head and feel profound pity. And walk away."
Actually, you should be shaking your head in profound stupidity and walk away. It is the epitome of intellectual fraudulence to posit that ANY theory is a FACT. If the "Theory" of evolution was a "FACT" it would cease to be called the "Theory of Evolution".
I can give you, its the best THEORY you guys got going, however unlike you folks, I am not inclined to limit myself to the temporal and spatial reality that you can measure to understand the greater actuality we are part of. Western science in its arrogance is good for what its good for, I'll concede that, but of this universe and its processes you are but children trying to make sense of something that is truly beyond your apprehension.
For example, the Bible has always posited that man has a common ancestry, that the human family is a family, common origins that divided by tribe, not a group of different "races". You scientist in your pride and ignorance (Darwin Amongst them) forwarded the fiction of RACE as a fact, and just recently you all have come to understand that humanity is NOT the divided mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid ignorance that you all posited for hundreds of years, scripture was right, you all were wrong, simple as that, so pardon me if I think your THEORIES can be questioned or mocked when one fraudulently posits such theories as facts.
You sit there and attribute Catholic doctrine, that was predicated on science and philosophy at the time (not Scripture in regard to how the earth was viewed). The ancients KNEW the world was ROUND, it was the scientist of those times who started that flat idiocy, there is no scripture you can point to that says the earth is "flat" or that the earth is the center of the universe. The fact that you repeat such ignorance is tantamount of your lack of understanding of the subject of spirituality or any of the ancient text from the Enuma Elish to the Vedas.
My advice to you, is to stick to what you can prove in science and to try to prove your THEORIES, because when you attempt to talk about spirituality you mix it up with theology, dogma and religion, the fact that you obviously don't know the difference, shows your lack of knowledge or understanding.
...nor did the Bill of Rights, (though technically "part" of the Constitution it is a completely separate document) have a date that contained, for the benefit of all who may be confused by not doing so, the words "In the Year of Our Lord". Based on my research, it's hit and miss. They may or they may have not used such nomenclature. It may have been "acceptable", but it is hardly accurate to claim that is was "common". Do you ever research before you write? Ever thought about it? You should try it. You'll find much less controversy would arise as a result of your comments would you only ensure that the material contained therein is limited to that which is "factual" and that those nuggets that you include that are simply nothing more than your ill-contrived idealistic opinions are properly labeled as so.
BTW, Well played DJ!
Robert, I want to clear something up. I responded to the writer of the article you posted. You said someone emailed it to you and claimed it was written by Paul Harvey, but you doubted it. So you posted this litany by, essentially an unknown author. I responded to that anonymous author when I used the word ignorant. Not you.
Some people here accused me of calling them ignorant. I called the writer of that anonymous screed ignorant.
No Christian in this country is being prevented from praying in his/her home or place of worship. Not one. Not one Christian is being prevented from praying to God everyday all day long. Not one.
I will not be drawn into arguments over minutia on whether a document was dated AD or not, and whether that proves that "God" is in the Constitution. When the Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest and threatened him with torture because he said the earth moves around the sun, the Church was the arbiter of all temporal matters. I made a mistake in my haste in typing "Bible" I should have "Church."
In any event, my errors do not in any way discredit Evolution as a fact. I'll let someone smarter and more informed on this subject than anyone who posts here explain:
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
Darwin has not,nor has any scientist established the "Fact" of evolution, in showing ONE Species turning into ANOTHER species.
It just AIN'T so, no matter how much you WISH it were, and no matter how many word games you play, IT AIN'T so.
Until you can show some intellectual integrity, I see no further reason to discuss this topic with you, you continue to be intellectually fraudulent and instead of truth, you wish to forward fallacies.
dj black adam,
Who says I'm discussing this with you?
Why would I discuss this subject with someone who would be laughed out of any serious school of science or any serious educational institution on the planet?
No, sir. It it you who is "forwarding fallacies" and is confused ("Darwin has not,nor has any scientist established the "Fact" of evolution, in showing ONE Species turning into ANOTHER species..")
Darwin never posited that. You really don't know what you're talking about.
You and the people who insist that evolution is "only a theory" and is not "fact" are a minority on this planet.
Again, I'll let someone who actually knows what he's talking about put it in his own words:
“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”
--James D. Watson
"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
ha. I am a self aware, living breathing person and neither you nor your science can tell me why. Nor can you tell me where I came from. You can hypothecize and theorize but you cannot factualize. THERE'S YOU AN "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" FOR YOU, SHAW.
"dj black adam, Who says I'm discussing this with you?"
You injected yourself into this thread. You're fair game to all participants.
Of the thousands...nay MILLIONS of fossils, your "science"...your "RELIGION" cannot produce ONE...not ONE friggin example of a fossil from a species in the midst of "evolving". The "missing links" are mysteriously missing not just from Man's alleged ancestors but also from every stinking species on the planet.
If what you say is true, then the mathematical liklihood of me digging in my garden and not finding a fossil would be a statistical improbability. I should hardly be able to kick the dust outside without overturning fossils. Yet your faith remains untilted, unwavered and unchanged. Yeah, evolution is most definitely a "religion". It's not an "imperfect fact", Shaw. We "wingnuts" tend to call a spade a spade. It's an "inconvenient, incomplete, and inconclusive THEORY!" Your reluctance to acknowledge that FACT is a prime example of just what the heck we're talking about. You say any suggestion to the contrary will get you laughed out of a modern classroom. I don't doubt that. But that is the point in its clearest form. No "evolutionist" is open to free discussions of the problems with this theory or debate it's inconsistencies at least not in the context of entertaining an alternative theory. It is taught as fact with no facts to back it up. Its blind acceptance by the academia is out of keeping with every scientific procedure, ethic, and mantra. To us, it's no more "science" than warp drive or teleportation, theoretically possible...maybe. Scientific fact, hardely...it's science fiction.
You want to keep calling it an "imperfect fact", fine. But if you want to convince those of us who dissent...PROVE IT, then come back to us. Otherwise, the rest of this is just your religion against ours.
"“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”
--James D. Watson
Please cite data confirming the claim that evolutionists are the majority and Creationists are a minority. I believe you'll have a hard time producing such data short of cutting and pasting quotes from someone who just decided to say it. US data will suffice, but World data would be even more interesting.
Saying it is so, doesn't make it so.
@Shaw
"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone..."
Bwahahahahaha!!!
O.K. follow me my “scientific” friend, I ‘ll dwell in the temporal and spatial limitations you choose to singularly dwell in for the sake of explaining to you what you seem to be willfully ignorant of.
Mosquitoes changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change, which is a FACT. Now if you want to call organisms changing generation to generation “Evolution” then Evolution is a "fact".
However, that is a bit misleading, because what is actually the “fact” that Neo Darwinism is explaining in that is “generational organism change” which may be a “part” of the broader definition of “evolution”, but is not the part that is what is generally pushed and defined in the social political discussion regarding “Evolutionary Theory” and how it relates to the origins of the Human Species.
Which is this, science posits that between 8 and 4 mya, gorillas, then chimpanzee divided from the line leading to the humans; partially based on the “FACT” that human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. Now Shaw, believe it or not I think that is a good guess, an educated guess even, BUT, it is not provable as of yet, and is not a “Truth” that it is posited by some in your atheistic community. BTW, Shaw, Evolution claims that ONE species (The common ancestor to apes like chimps and humans), became the different species of Apes we have today. That my friend, cannot be proven.
So we can play semantics all day, but at the end of the day, you know what the problem is, which is that somehow, you “atheist” believe that even if you were to prove that ONE Primate species became many other Primate species, it wouldn’t prove your position on the non existence of God or the non-uniqueness of humanity.
As far a science goes, like I said to you before, just because most of you folks believe a theory to be fact and use it as a postulate to formulate other ideas, doesn’t mean that it will endure, like I said with the flawed scientific facts of “race” which were later proved wrong, just because majority believes something, doesn’t mean it will endure or is unchallengeable.
So you can quote scientists who speak the language of “science” and ignore the broader social political ramifications of what the true discussion is, but that is not only duplicitous, but is intellectually fraudulent and deceptive.
Further, you need to stop forwarding false hoods about what the ancients believed or taught in the esoteric and religious traditions, as it is apparent you speak without knowledge.
dj black adam,
You and a few other people who post here have problems with reading what is posted.
"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone..."
I didn't say that. James D. Watson did. Now if you think you know more than he does about biology, let me ask you in which legitimate scientific journals have you been published with your idea that evolution is fraudulent?
Oh. I thought so. What you've written is opinion. I, on the othere hand, would tend to believe a man who has proven credentials in science.
But it's not just you, my friend, who holds those mistaken ideas. A survey of US citizens has found that "...creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal..."
That is not me talking but the results of a survey. You can read it all here and find out where you all stand in relation to the rest of the world.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
more highly educated adults believe in "evolution:"
74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in "evolution," as do:
48% of college graduates
50% of adults with some college
41% of adults with high school or less.
I disagree with the way the question is framed. Asking someone if they "believe" in evolution is like asking someone if they believe in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Evolution is not a belief, it is based on sound evidence.
Shaw wrote:
“But it's not just you, my friend, who holds those mistaken ideas. A survey of US citizens has found that "...creationists (I am a creationist, as I believe God created the Universe) continue to be older (I’m well under 40), less educated (U of I Chicago Grad, Student at U of C Masters of Theology / JD program), Southern (I’m from Chicago), politically conservative (my friends call me Tovarisch), and biblically literal (That is quite a misnomer, I read the Bible literally when it intends to be literal and understand the difference of literary techniques of ancient writings, which you might want to try)...”
You presume wayyy too much Shaw, but that is always the case with your kind, which is why for all the intellect you claim you have, you are forever learning never coming to knowledge of TRUTH.
I deleted some comments where I insulted you, I felt that was unnecessary amongst adults, however; it appears you are not capable of discussing this topic without resorting to sophomoric and infantile prattle and insults, summed up as “If you were smart, you would accept our theory as the end all”. Utterly Inane. Obviously you are unable to discuss the greater social actuality of the effects of your precious “theory” or admit to its limits as what is fact and what is conjecture, preferring to play semantics to avoid truth.
Bwahahahaha! You idiots just don’t get the fact that there are educated people, who are not “conservative” (by your definition) who aren’t southern Baptist who UNDERSTAND your science, but just don’t find it as the LIMIT of knowledge.
And as far as where I stand in relation to “the rest of the world”, please, I generally question anything I believe and am damn worried if I agree with the “majority”.
There was a time when the “majority” (your boy Darwin chief amongst them) educated and non educated alike believed I was inferior because of my African Ancestry, so sorry if I am not moved by the “majority think / masses mentality” model, I tend to think things through for myself.
DJ, just thought I would step in and welcome you to my place. There are some spirited discussions here on occasion!
Please come by as often as you wish, even when it is a little more tame.
Thank you for your welcome Robert, I have added you to my blogroll, I enjoy alot of what I have read here so far. We share some views and differ on some, but you present your positions very well!
There was a time when the “majority” (your boy Darwin chief amongst them) educated and non educated alike believed I was inferior because of my African Ancestry, so sorry if I am not moved by the “majority think / masses mentality” model, I tend to think things through for myself. --dj black adam
Ronald Reagan, who lived in this century and should have known better, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as “...humiliating to South.”
Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights. He opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Reagan said in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.” While he made political points with white southerners on this issue, he was sensitive to any suggestion that his stands on civil rights issues were politically or racially motivated, and he typically reacted to such criticisms as attacks on his personal integrity.
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 520 Jul 2, 1991
But thee observations have nothing to do with this discussion so let's not go there okay? since my family includes persons of color.
And if you read my post carefully, I did not, nor did the survey say ALL creationists. You continue to put words in my mouth.
I was very careful to point out that IT WAS THE SURVEY THAT MADE THESE CLAIMS, NOT ME. I DID NOT DO THE PRESUMING!
And thanks for being so gracious in not calling me names, but just calling my comments "...sophomoric and infantile prattle..." And then referring to me and those who hold to the theory of evolution as "idiots."
You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar.
One other thing. Should we condemn Lutherism because Martin Luther was a lethal anti-semite, who was responsible for this:
On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word treatise written by the acknowledged founder of the Reformation, the German, Martin Luther, in 1543, three years before his death.
In the treatise, Luther wrote that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine," and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."
Richard Wagner was an anti-semite, but should I stop listening to his sublimely beautiful music? Should I never again read T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" because of his anti-semitism?
Your Dawin example does not change what his discoveries gave to science.
Shawn:
The Darwin example with his social Darwinism is not that his "discoveries" be thrown out, but that some of those same discoveries were utilized as predicates for his incorrect conclusions about the science fiction of race.
For a looonnggg time, many folks inside and outside the academic / science community believed that trifle as fact. So unlike you I don't take any body's word on subjects they claim a mastery in, I will ALWAYS review things myself AND come to my own conclusions on what I accept or reject. You used Martin Luther in this example:
"One other thing. Should we condemn Lutherism because Martin Luther was a lethal anti-semite..."
Actually it's called "Lutheranism" Now, I don't think I implied or inferred anyone should be condemned for their faults, I will say that I look at ALL of Martin Luther's THEOLOGY very carefully because I am aware of his Antisemitism.
You wrote:
"And thanks for being so gracious in not calling me names, but just calling my comments "...sophomoric and infantile prattle..." And then referring to me and those who hold to the theory of evolution as "idiots."
No, I deleted certain comments before I read yours, you obviously have no problem dishing it out, so I felt no need to go soft on your "infantile prattle". As for "IDIOTS", that wasn't for people who hold to the theory of evolution, that was for people who ASSUME that people who don't are uneducated or stupid. You obviously are at the least an intellectual bigot, so I see no need to extend you courtesies you are unable or unwilling to extend yourself.
DJ, the differences in opinions is what makes the blogosphere worth exploring. Opinions from every point in the spectrum are welcomed here, as long as they remain civil and within the bounds of decency.
I have only removed one post in the entire lifespan of my house here. Bring what you wish! I aprpeciate your discourse and the pointed debates.
that wasn't for people who hold to the theory of evolution, that was for people who ASSUME that people who don't are uneducated or stupid. --dj black adam
I didn't say it, sir. The survey produced that data. You are enraged by it, and I understand.
The survey shows that the more fundamental one is in one's religious beliefs, and the less education one has, the more one is apt to reject evolution.
There are always sports* in these data--
*Biology. an organism or part that shows an unusual or singular deviation from the normal or parent type; mutation.
There's no denying that there are educated people who reject the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution explains how life evolved on the planet. But those educated people who think this way are rare.
That's just the way it is.
Oh, and "Lutheranism." Thanks for the correction. I needed that.
You obviously are at the least an intellectual bigot.--dj black adam
In the case of defending evolution against irrationality, THAT, my good man, is a wonderful compliment. I shall wear it as a badge of honor.
"An intellectual bigot in the defense of evolution."
I like it.
48% of college graduates
50% of adults with some college
41% of adults with high school or less.
I'm no statistician but ....correct me if I'm wrong. None of those values are a Majority. Wonder what the other 52% of college graduates believe, Shaw? Sounds like a middle of the road, "some do some don't" survey to me.
Not exactly compelling evidence.
I also find some "bias" in your cited survey. You think that survey included those with Theology or Divinity degrees? Or do you just not consider those people to be "post graduates"? Conveneintly it does not say. I don't put a lot of stock in surveys and polls. Since none can be all inclusive, their "results" are conjecture at best.
You are the most condescending elitist I've ever had the mispleasure of crossing swords with. You are compelled by that which we find uncompelling, yet you call into question the intelligence of anyone who refuses to conform simply because you cite that the majority of academics believe it. Who cares? We all agree that the academia is your little elitist, exclusive club to which admittance and tenure is only granted to those who are like minded. No one here disputes that. But it's a poor platform from which to argue.
Your precious academia: "Look at us up here in this ivory tower! We only let in those who think like us. The rest...we laugh out of the building. We entertain no dissenting point of view. We are an exclusive club. Listen to us. Believe us. Conform to us. We are the open-minded freethinkers!"
Hmmmm. No thanks. I choose to think for myself, not to parrot the beliefs of some tenured beatnik hippy who thinks for me. Better hurry back now, Shaw....the collective is calling.
"An intellectual bigot in the defense of evolution."
lol, actually you are: "An intellectual bigot who is too stupid to know when they are being called stupid".
But hey, you like it, I love it.
dj black adam,
You call me stupid in your post, and I’m listening, for where stupidity is involved, you are quite an expert, friend.
"You call me stupid in your post, and I’m listening, for where stupidity is involved, you are quite an expert, friend."
(snicker!) That was friggin' weak!
[url=http://dcxvssh.com]OJZSwvHMRTG[/url] , nYBWZYwIzufSiTpXz , http://yuxeflk.com
Post a Comment