Label Me! [Archive] - FreeConservatives

View Full Version : Label Me!

Trevelyan

09-30-2006, 01:33 AM

I felt motivated to create this thread upon reading over the thread entitled, "Liberal Socialists WANT to Destroy Our "Republic."

I always read what liberals are supposed to be on here. I consider myself a little left of center; however, I am just curious about what you would label me as, because I personally feel I do not entirely fit into the FC definition of "liberal."

So, I will just make a list of my opinions:

I support funding stem-cell research, and I also believe that those who oppose stem-cell research and not in-vitro fertilization are hypocrites.

I oppose Affirmative Action on the basis of race. However, I believe if the person has led a disadvantaged life, then that should be taken into consideration in situations such as choosing who to admit to a college or professional school.

I oppose the teaching of non-science in the science classroom. Thus, until something like ID/Creationism becomes a valid scientific theory, it does not belong in the science classroom. However, I have absolutely no problem with such matters being taught in other classes if the subject would be appropriate. Furthermore, I also have no problem with religious electives in public schools

I oppose prayer in public schools that are led. I am alright with students praying of their own volition.

I have recently become politically pro-life (I was always personally opposed to abortion), but not for the same reason many pro-lifers usually are.

I oppose the death penalty.

I have no problem with homosexual marriage. However, I also see why some would not find it appropriate that their tax dollars are supporting it, so I am also in favor of some sort of "Flex Tax" reform for issues such as this. I know Homes has my back on the Flex Tax idea. :)

I am alright with public religious displays, as long as all religions are afforded the opportunity to participate if they wish.

The Boy Scouts should not be forced to admit individuals they do not want in their organization. However, I do not think they should reject homosexuals or atheists despite their right to.

I am for free speech, and I oppose government organizations such as the FCC having authority over media content on cable or satellite radio, which is a reality some politicians are seeking. Individuals should have the right to whatever entertainment they desire. Parents should do the parenting here, not the government

I am for the legalization of marijuana.

People should have the choice to have their social security privatized if they so desire, but it should not be forced on everyone in such a manner.

I support the tax cuts for the lower, middle, and lower upper classes, but I really do not feel sorry at all in believing the extremely wealthy should have their tax cuts rolled back somewhat.

I have no problem attaching the tax dollars that would go towards paying for the education of a certain student and granting them the freedom to choose a school they would want to attend, as opposed to being relegated to a specific public school they do not wish to attend. If the student chooses to attend a private school instead of a different public school, then the tax dollars can be utilized there if the student cannot afford a private school education.

I do not want to ban guns, but I do not believe that certain restrictions on them are unconstitutional. It merely states that we have the right to bear arms. There is no mention of the degree to which we may do so.

I oppose the open border mentality.

English should be our official language.

PETA sucks. Enough said.

Um, that is all that comes to mind at the moment. So go ahead, label me!

Republican_Legion

09-30-2006, 03:33 AM

I am for the legalization of marijuana.

Agreed.

I am alright with students praying of their own volition.

Agreed

I oppose Affirmative Action on the basis of race.

Agreed.

I support funding stem-cell research

Semi-agreed, I think it should be privately funded.

The Boy Scouts should not be forced to admit individuals they do not want in their organization

Agreed.

pro-life

Agreed.

I am for free speech, and I oppose government organizations such as the FCC having authority over media content on cable or satellite radio, which is a reality some politicians are seeking. Individuals should have the right to whatever entertainment they desire. Parents should do the parenting here, not the government

Agreed.

I support the tax cuts for the lower, middle, and lower upper classes, but I really do not feel sorry at all in believing the extremely wealthy should have their tax cuts rolled back somewhat.

Agreed for the most part except it depends on what extremely wealthy is, if its people who are Multi-Billionares like Bill Gates and warren buffet and george soros then yes I agree.

People should have the choice to have their social security privatized if they so desire, but it should not be forced on everyone in such a manner.

Agreed, I think people should have the choice of how to invest their money for retirement.

I oppose the open border mentality.

English should be our official language.

PETA sucks. Enough said.

Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.

I'd say your center right towards economics and about slightly more conservative socially then socially liberal.

Basicly I'd say your more socially conservative then the average libertarian but not as right wing on economics as the average libertarian.

Your very hard to label :thumb: I'd say your much like Bill O'reilly.
Bill O'reilly would agree with just about everything you said.

Wolfcounsel

09-30-2006, 09:09 AM

Just reading your description, I'd say you are more on the liberal side. The word "liberal" is used sarcastically by me to describe those left of center.

DoctorDoom

09-30-2006, 09:30 AM

Only certain points will be addressed.

I support funding stem-cell research, and I also believe that those who oppose stem-cell research and not in-vitro fertilization are hypocrites.First, you use the blanket term, "stem-cell research", without mentioning that the objection is to EMBRYONIC SCR. Second, IVF CREATES life, rather than exploiting death.

I oppose the teaching of non-science in the science classroom.Just so, which is why I oppose teaching the atheistic religion of evolutionism in a science classroom. The fact that evolutionists call it a science and use a lot of scientific-sounding jargon does not make it a science.

Thus, until something like ID/Creationism becomes a valid scientific theory, it does not belong in the science classroom.They are as valid as the "theory" that all life on Earth, past and present, "evolved" from one primitive lifeform by trillions of impossible genetic accidents.

I oppose the death penalty.Expected. I favor it. People who commit monstrous crimes forfeit the right to life, and they cost taxpayers a lot of money to support them. Fry the bastards.

I have no problem with homosexual marriage.I have a grievous problem with it. It requires perverting the definition of marriage that has been the bedrock of civilization for millenia, purely because some queers want to play marriage. Beyond that, its only purpose is to force our nation to legitimize and normalize homosexuality, which is unacceptable.

However, I also see why some would not find it appropriate that their tax dollars are supporting it, so I am also in favor of some sort of "Flex Tax" reform for issues such as this.We already have too damned many taxes supporting bullshit liberal ideas.

I am alright with public religious displays, as long as all religions are afforded the opportunity to participate if they wish.And how many religions want to participate in Christmas-related displays? If the Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and Zoroastrians want to celebrate their religions with public displays, go for it. The ACLU won't say a word. Their obsession is with Christmas, because nowhere in their ranks can they find three wise men and a virgin.

The Boy Scouts should not be forced to admit individuals they do not want in their organization. However, I do not think they should reject homosexuals or atheists despite their right to.The fixation of queers with destroying the BSA for refusing to do so makes very clear that their interest in the Scouts is solely and disgustingly sexual.

I am for free speech, and I oppose government organizations such as the FCC having authority over media content on cable or satellite radio, which is a reality some politicians are seeking. Individuals should have the right to whatever entertainment they desire. Parents should do the parenting here, not the government.If the offensive material (which is ALWAYS what liberals defend) is not available without the pervs taking extra steps to get it, then it's their choice.

I am for the legalization of marijuana.I am for the legalization of killing drug dealers.

I support the tax cuts for the lower, middle, and lower upper classes, but I really do not feel sorry at all in believing the extremely wealthy should have their tax cuts rolled back somewhat.Fact time:

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes

(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)

October 4, 2005

This is the latest data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/CY2003Taxes.gif

*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html)

Ergo, your position is based on class envy.

I do not want to ban guns, but I do not believe that certain restrictions on them are unconstitutional. It merely states that we have the right to bear arms. There is no mention of the degree to which we may do so.Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The highlighted phrase puts the lie to the notion of limitations. IAC, isn't it interesting that "the people" in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments refers to American citizens, but in the Second, "the people" refers to a government militia. As usual, libs (generic term) use the Constitution for toilet paper when they don't like what it says.

Lubbock

09-30-2006, 09:40 AM

The way I read the entire post/description, you label yourself.

Trevelyan

09-30-2006, 01:35 PM

Only certain points will be addressed.

First, you use the blanket term, "stem-cell research", without mentioning that the objection is to EMBRYONIC SCR. Second, IVF CREATES life, rather than exploiting death.

Ok, I was referring to embryonic stem-cell research, but I support all types. Also, IVF creates life at a cost, just as embryonic stem-cell research does in hopes of curing certain diseases in the future. If other methods are shown to conclusively be as adequate or more so than embryonic stem-cell research, then it certainly should be scrapped.

Anyway, if IVF is alright, I do not see the point of not utilizing the leftover embryos from IVF.

Just so, which is why I oppose teaching the atheistic religion of evolutionism in a science classroom. The fact that evolutionists call it a science and use a lot of scientific-sounding jargon does not make it a science.

And when ID/Creationism is recognized by the scientific community, despite the fact it relies on God's existence, and God is impossible to measure using the scientific method, I will then have no problem with it being taught in the science classroom.

They are as valid as the "theory" that all life on Earth, past and present, "evolved" from one primitive lifeform by trillions of impossible genetic accidents.

I do not really want to get into an evolution debate in this thread or this section of the forum.

We already have too damned many taxes supporting bullshit liberal ideas.

Yeah, but the point of such a "Flex Tax" program would be to allow only those who support certain issues such as homosexual marriage to allocate a portion of their taxes towards it. If you do not support it, your money does not have to go towards it. Certainly homosexuals would not receive as much under such a system, but it is better than nothing.

And how many religions want to participate in Christmas-related displays? If the Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and Zoroastrians want to celebrate their religions with public displays, go for it. The ACLU won't say a word. Their obsession is with Christmas, because nowhere in their ranks can they find three wise men and a virgin.

Ok...I don't know what the ACLU has to do with me here though.

Anyway, I am not saying that other religions have to be included within Christmas related displays.

The fixation of queers with destroying the BSA for refusing to do so makes very clear that their interest in the Scouts is solely and disgustingly sexual.

Well, I do not think being a homosexual makes you a predator that cannot control your impulses when either leading a group of individuals of the same sex, or as a scout in a group of the same sex.

Anyway, as I said, the Boy Scouts should not be forced to, nor should they be kicked off of government property. If there are those who want to create their own Boy Scouts equivalent which embrace a wider variety of people, then that is the course of action that should be taken, as opposed to harassing the Boy Scouts.

If the offensive material (which is ALWAYS what liberals defend) is not available without the pervs taking extra steps to get it, then it's their choice.

Are not cable and satellite radio extra steps?

Anyway, cable or satellite television providers should offer packages in which specific channels can be purchased.

I keep hearing how conservatism is supposed to be all about less government and personal choices and responsibility, yet when it comes to this, many conservatives seem to want nanny government.

Fact time:

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html)

Ergo, your position is based on class envy.

I know this. Still doesn't change my opinion. Also, I am talking about multi-millionaires, not all that fall into the "top 1%."

Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The highlighted phrase puts the lie to the notion of limitations. IAC, isn't it interesting that "the people" in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments refers to American citizens, but in the Second, "the people" refers to a government militia. As usual, libs (generic term) use the Constitution for toilet paper when they don't like what it says.

So.....what? People should be free to possess any fully automatic weapon they choose, and what, a rocket launcher here and there?

Wyatt_Junker

09-30-2006, 01:44 PM

So go ahead, label me!

Uh, fag?

Trevelyan

09-30-2006, 01:50 PM

Uh, fag?

:sad:

Wyatt_Junker

09-30-2006, 02:06 PM

:sad:

Don't worry.

Its a complement.

LightHorseman

09-30-2006, 02:11 PM

So.....what? People should be free to possess any fully automatic weapon they choose, and what, a rocket launcher here and there?
combined with
I keep hearing how conservatism is supposed to be all about less government and personal choices and responsibility, yet when it comes to this, many conservatives seem to want nanny government.

and I just had an epiphany... why is it the conservatives who keep banging on about tighter controls against the populace as counter terrorism, specifically at air ports?

I mean, logically, the ultimate interpretation of "being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means that any drunken wierdo with an I.Q. of 75 should be able to carry a Minimi and six pack of grenades onto any flight in the U.S. Obviously I'm drawing an extreme example, but if you arent comfortable with the idea of our drooling, heat packing angry guy sitting next to you on your next flight, then I think the case has been sufficiently made that SOME regulation of firearms is appropriate.

Trevelyan

09-30-2006, 02:11 PM

Don't worry.

Its a complement.

Awww...you're a huge fag too then. :)

Wyatt_Junker

09-30-2006, 02:57 PM

Awww...you're a huge fag too then. :)

Sometimes.

My wife says I dance like a faggot. So, there's some fag right there.

As far as my Village People personality profile, I'm full-on construction worker. How about you, fag? Cop, indian, or eskimo?

LightHorseman

10-01-2006, 03:33 AM

Hey, Republican Legion,

if YOU can go to FSTDT, why can't I? Seems the best way to avoid ending up on that site is to avoid saying anything thats obviously flawed. Anyway, as a site that targets Religious Fundamentalists, I fail to see what rational political discussion has to do with it.

Please, feel free to find ANY post I have made there that is intrinsically opposed to a conservative POV?

Or do you prefer to box and label people so you don't have to engage with them? And even if you do... I keep trying to tell you that I agree with an awful lot of what contributors to this site have to say.

I'm interested in open, honest discussion. If you can't handle that, well fine, but how about just sitting quietly and letting me have a go, rather than name calling?

Republican_Legion

10-01-2006, 04:34 AM

Your from FSTDT and are an active member of that hatefilled website and its agenda. You aint fooling anyone TROLL.:nono:

LightHorseman

10-01-2006, 06:10 AM

Your from FSTDT and are an active member of that hatefilled website and its agenda. You aint fooling anyone TROLL

Obviously so are you, or you wouldn't be checking out the site?!

So come on, what exactly am I suppposed to have said you find so contrary? go on, quote me, that way you won't risk being FSTDTed...

How can anyone be "from" a website anyway? Geez

LightHorseman

10-01-2006, 06:51 AM

I thought I would take a page from Trevelyan's excelent example. Possibly, if anyone cares to read what I'm prepared to say on the rcord, people will stop misconstruing my contribution to FSTDT as something to be feared. I do not feel I am anything remotely considered "liberal" by the majority of people, and am fairly conservative in my views. What I do react to is arbitrary labelling and debate by sound bite rather than rational discussion, and all the usual fallacies really iritate me, particulalry ad hominem, appeal to false authority, and arguement from incredulity. Anyway, here goes...

So, I will just make a list of my opinions, drawing from Trevelyan's example:

I believe in funding all biological research, and allowing private funding of any program that will pass a peer based ethics comitee. I believe all such projects should be public domain, unless there is a GOOD reason for them not to be, and that therefore, no one without a sound understanding of the methodology and practices should be considered in any subsequent discussion, until they familiarise themselves with all issues to a basic level at least.

I oppose Affirmative Action on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. However I also believe that bias against people oin the same grounds is to be avoided at all costs. Everyone should be judged on their individual merrits, and that everyone should be given the same starting point to make the fullest use of theose merrits, whatever they may be.

I oppose the teaching of non-science in the science classroom. Anything that can be effectively demonstrated in line with the scientific method may be included. Anything that can't be, belongs elsewhere. Feel free to test my assumption on this. To strt you off, I would contend that psychology is a borderline concern...

I don't believe in forcing anyone to pray if they don't want to. I don't believe that anyone should be stopped from praying any where or any time that they feel comfortable to do so. I believe that personal beliefs are personal business, and that regulation of belief has absolutely no place in legislature, providing of course, that personal beliefs are not used as an excuse to infringe on any one else.

I believe abortion should be avoided where ever possible. I do not believe that abortion is a viable alternative to easily available birth control. I believe every support should be made available to women considering an abortion so that they do not feel they are making the decision on their own, and that this step would reduce the number of abortions markedly.

I oppose the death penalty, only on the grounds that I would rather see every guilty person go free than condemn one innocent. I believe that some crimes DO deserve the death penalty. However, I DO NOT believe that the justice system is infalible, and that therefore, there will always be a risk of sending an innocent person to the gallows. Might not sound so bad as an abstraction. Now imagine its your son or brother on death row for a crime he didn't commit. One is too many.

I'm not gay. Personally, I don't see the apeal. But, if thats what people want to do, as long as they arent hurting anyone, rock on. As for marriage, if the homosexual couple can find a minister or celebrant willing to perform the ceremony, than why not? As far as state recognition is concerned, I see no reason why long term homosexual partners should not be afforded the same protections as any other de facto couple, and whether you call it marriage or civil union doesn't really make a difference to me. I do not believe that any one elses marriage will effect my own relationships in the slightest. As I said with prayer, matters of personal belief and practice, that do not infringe on anyone else, are up to the individual.

I like public religious displays. Australia does not yet seem to have gone down the road of secularising Christmas, and thats a good thing. If its your property, and you want to have an 8 foot nativity scene out the front, then more power to you, providing of course, that you don't raise any objection to your hindu neighbour's 8 foot statue of Ganesha in their holy month, whatever that is. Publc property is public property, therefore, every member of the public should be free to use it as they wish. But thats EVERYONE, so Nativitys at Christmas and crosses and eggs at Easter is fine in a public park, as long as the local Muslims get to set up a wall for throwing rocks at in Ramadan, or whatever they feel is appropriate. I don't believe anyone has the right to impede anyone's public display of affiliation and personal belief, provided those beliefs don't involve throwing lit petrol bombs at passers by.

Boy Scouts, or any other group, should be in total control of who they let in. If you have a men's club, women should not be able to force their way in. I believe that REAL equality would lie in women setting up a competing women's only club across the street. So, boy Scouts are founded on religious traditions, if you are an atheist, then its really not going to be for you. BUT, you could feel free to set up an Atheist Youth Group, and see how that goes. It is inapropriate for a Muslim to claim unfair treatment for not being permitted to pray in a Catholic church, the reverse is also true. If you want to join a club, you agree to follow the rues. If the rules don't suit you, you have the right NOT to join, not to change the rules. Freedom is a two way street.

I am for free speech. Anyone should be able to say what they like, and listen to what they like. People should ALSO have the right to NOT listen to anything they don't want to. So, if you are a holocaust denier, fine, you have the right to say that. However, you do NOT have the right to make anyone listen or agree with your POV. I don't believe there is anything inherently bad about any form of personal expression, although I DO believe that unnecesarily explicet violence or sex is rarely in good taste. That does not mean, however, that anyone who wants to see it should be prevented by anyone, kind of a "Quo custodiet ipso custodes?" type of thing. I believe that government should be publicly accountable and easily discoverable. I belief in free flow of news material, although I am STRONGLY opposed to sensationalism and media beat ups. If people want to look up bomb making on the internet, I believe they should be able to do so without fear of wire taps or government scrutiny.

I believe that drugs policy is flawed. Legalisation across the board would probably cause many problems, but it would probably resolve as many, if not more. I do not belief the current enforcement paradigm is effective or fair, and whatever we try, its time to try something else.

I believe social security should be provided as a safety net. That anyone should starve to death, go homeless or die of an easily treatable medical condition in a developed country disgusts me. However, I do not believe that people should be provided anything beyond the bare essentials indefinitely, but I do believe it must be easier to find work, and less tempting to resort to crime if you don't have to worry about the kids starving or dying of strep throat while you are out handing out resumes.

I believe taxes are generally too high, and government's should be more accountable for the spending of tax dollars. I believe everyone should pay tax, but no one should be taxed into poverty. High quality education is one of the few services I think it is the duty of government to provide.

I believe an armed society is a polite society. I believe anyone should be able to own any sort of personal level weapon, provided they can be demonstrably shown to have a sound working knowedge of how to use the weapon safely. I have no problem with people carrying weapons for self defence, although I DO believe in serious punishments for anyone who uses a weapon against someone in any context other than self defence.

Imigration is not a right, its a privelege. Refuges have had a hard time, and I'm sympathetic. However, I feel they are better served with support to their country of origin and guaranteed safe passage than they would be by an open door policy. I believe the rights of a citizen, born or naturalised, always trump the rights of the visitor.

English should be our official language.

PETA sucks. So do people who are cruel to animals. I'm a carnivore and owner of a dog and a horse, just to set that in perspective.

So, its my hope that this qualifies as an ice breaker, and that I mightt be met a little more warmly now. If anyone wants to discuss, ask, or correct anything I've said, I'm always open to friendly, rational discussion.

Lubbock

10-01-2006, 08:51 AM

I think the entire thing has descended into a platform for Liberal Twadle.

Republican_Legion

10-01-2006, 08:56 AM

I have to admit Trev has moved slightly more rightward from when he first started posting here. This thread has been hijacked by a fSTDter.

DoctorDoom

10-01-2006, 11:17 AM

Ok, I was referring to embryonic stem-cell research, but I support all types. Also, IVF creates life at a cost, just as embryonic stem-cell research does in hopes of curing certain diseases in the future.Question: if said magical cures are discovered—and there is not a shred of evidence that they will be or even can be—what do you propose as the source of ESCs when they are needed by the trillions for the treatments?

If other methods are shown to conclusively be as adequate or more so than embryonic stem-cell research, then it certainly should be scrapped. Since ESCs have NOT been shown to be "adequate" for anything, the argument is meaningless.

Anyway, if IVF is alright, I do not see the point of not utilizing the leftover embryos from IVF.How many "leftover embryos" will be required if the research does find some use for them? IVF involves ONE couple looking for a child, not a million people looking for miracle cures.

And when ID/Creationism is recognized by the scientific community, despite the fact it relies on God's existence, and God is impossible to measure using the scientific method, I will then have no problem with it being taught in the science classroom.A typical evowacko "argument". You have your own tripartite god: genetic mutations, natural selection, and time. My God is infinitely more credible than yours.

As for the "scientific community" recognizing anything but evolutionism, it won't happen as long as the professional reputations and the careers of scientists rely on mouthing the Darwinian litany. Think not? Look at the monomaniacal obsession with destroying Dr. Behe and Dr. Denton because they don't have their lips superglued to Chuckie D's ass.

Evolutionism cannot tolerate any opposing viewpoints because it cannot survive logic and reason. Therefore it enforces exclusivity via laws and courts and polls and votes. Ya got a really great "science" there, kid. Science by consensus and censorship is the bane of REAL science.

I do not really want to get into an evolution debate in this thread or this section of the forum.Ditto.

Yeah, but the point of such a "Flex Tax" program would be to allow only those who support certain issues such as homosexual marriage to allocate a portion of their taxes towards it.And have you contemplated the ponderous bureaucracy that would be required to mechanize that frivolous idea? Can you follow a specific dollar through a system that deals with trillions of dollars every year? Can you be certain that my dollar does not "support certain issues" that your tax return is allocating to those issues?

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-- Thomas Jefferson

If you do not support it, your money does not have to go towards it.And can it be assured that my money will NOT be used?

Certainly homosexuals would not receive as much under such a system, but it is better than nothing.Envision the number of taxpayers who would check off a box on the return to allocate a dollar or two or ten to homosexual "marriage". And why must government underwrite the corruption of marriage IAC?

Well, I do not think being a homosexual makes you a predator that cannot control your impulses when either leading a group of individuals of the same sex, or as a scout in a group of the same sex.Ever do research on the number of homosexual predators who have already infiltrated the Scouts, and who have been caught and convicted for doing their evils with the boys?

Anyway, as I said, the Boy Scouts should not be forced to, nor should they be kicked off of government property. If there are those who want to create their own Boy Scouts equivalent which embrace a wider variety of people, then that is the course of action that should be taken, as opposed to harassing the Boy Scouts.Agreed. If homosexuals and atheists want youth groups, let them start their own and see how many people entrust their children to them. One thing is certain: they'll all be liberals.

BTW, the Girl Scouts caved to homosexuals and now openly welcome lesbians.

Are not cable and satellite radio extra steps?Yep, and if they want to pander to perverts, that's their choice. The issue is filth on publicly accessible channels.

Anyway, cable or satellite television providers should offer packages in which specific channels can be purchased.They already do.

I keep hearing how conservatism is supposed to be all about less government and personal choices and responsibility, yet when it comes to this, many conservatives seem to want nanny government.When catering to the personal choices of pervs forces parents to turn their homes into fortresses in order to keep their kids away from the raw sewage that passes for "entertainment", something is drastically amiss.

I know this. Still doesn't change my opinion. Also, I am talking about multi-millionaires, not all that fall into the "top 1%."Obviously, you are jealous of multi-millionaires and want to punish them for being wealthy. That's typical liberal "penalize the rich" class envy. BTW, what about all those Unholywood multi-millionaires, and the multi-millionaire Senators? Do you truly think they're going to support raping themselves with taxes?

So.....what? People should be free to possess any fully automatic weapon they choose, and what, a rocket launcher here and there?That's a standard liberal Straw Man that I've seen used by gun-grabbers at least a hundred times. I'm surprised that you didn't add ICBMs and nuclear devices to the list.

Re fully automatic weapons, they are available with federal licensing. Would you care to provide a list of all the crimes that have been committed while using them? How about all the crimes involving "assault weapons" (definition: guns that look military)? Or maybe all the crimes where the criminals used expensive firearms, e.g., Desert Eagles or Wildeys?

There are over 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws. There are also crimes committed with firearms. Conclusion: the laws don't work because by definition criminals ignore and violate laws. Therefore the idiotic notion that more laws will make a difference is ludicrous. Such laws penalize only the law-abiding. But ask the Brits about that.

This is my idea of gun control.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/LibsPlay.jpg" />

HomeschoolrsRUs

10-01-2006, 04:08 PM

I thought I would take a page from Trevelyan's excelent example. Possibly, if anyone cares to read what I'm prepared to say on the rcord, people will stop misconstruing my contribution to FSTDT as something to be feared.

We do not FEAR those from FSTDT. They are without honor, and contemptible. Regardless of the minute exceptions that make it legal, stealing quotes is unethical. Regardless of how emphatically the owner and his cohorts claim they do not do so, they take quotes out of context. The theives, for the most part, are such cowards they won't even identify themselves as the one responsible for lifting the quote(s). They hide away in their site, mocking and ridiculing people and their words, knowing that unless by some off-chance the originator stumbles upon their site or is told about it, no rebuttal or clarification will be seen. They are so upstanding? Yet routinely they will state in their comments how they would like to beat someone up, slap them down, or wish something horrible would happen to the originator of the quote(s). They aren't worthy of fear . . . they are despicable.

Why then do we sound the trump when we find that someone from "over there" comes over here? Would YOU allow rock-throwers and disparagers in YOUR home? Would you assume they were just visiting for "rational discussion"?

So, I will just make a list of my opinions, drawing from Trevelyan's example:

I have no care to pick apart your post, it was thoughtful, interesting, and for the most part reasonable. The only point I wish to contend is:

High quality education is one of the few services I think it is the duty of government to provide.

I completely disagree. First, you can't get "high quality" anything from government. Second, parents should be responsible, and in fact are the only ones with a 100% vested interested in making sure their children grow, learn, develop, and become productive citizens, persons, and souls. When one abdicates that much time to government, isn't it safe to say that the government then has even more influence over the child than the parent? Wouldn't this be an excellent way to destroy a nation?

“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” -- Adolf Hitler

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 05:10 PM

Question: if said magical cures are discovered—and there is not a shred of evidence that they will be or even can be—what do you propose as the source of ESCs when they are needed by the trillions for the treatments?

Create more embryos if IVF leftover embryos are not sufficient. Hopefully, however, the other forms of stem-cells end up being adequate alternatives, and offer everything embryonic stem-cell treatments potentially could or more.

Since ESCs have NOT been shown to be "adequate" for anything, the argument is meaningless.

The research is far too young to rule out all possibilities.

IVF involves ONE couple looking for a child, not a million people looking for miracle cures.

I see absolutely no difference in sacrificing potential life to bring one new life into the world and sacrificing potential life to sustain the life already in this world.

A typical evowacko "argument". You have your own tripartite god: genetic mutations, natural selection, and time.

I am not an atheist.

As for the "scientific community" recognizing anything but evolutionism, it won't happen as long as the professional reputations and the careers of scientists rely on mouthing the Darwinian litany. Think not? Look at the monomaniacal obsession with destroying Dr. Behe and Dr. Denton because they don't have their lips superglued to Chuckie D's ass.

It can happen if any scientist, regardless of their support or non-support of evolution, discovers some method in which God can be empirically observed.

Evolutionism cannot tolerate any opposing viewpoints because it cannot survive logic and reason. Therefore it enforces exclusivity via laws and courts and polls and votes. Ya got a really great "science" there, kid. Science by consensus and censorship is the bane of REAL science.

Just because science has not sufficiently proven evolution in your opinion, does not mean that the conclusion that God must have created life on earth according to the Bible becomes a valid scientific theory. Discover a method to experimentally study God, then you will have something.

And have you contemplated the ponderous bureaucracy that would be required to mechanize that frivolous idea? Can you follow a specific dollar through a system that deals with trillions of dollars every year? Can you be certain that my dollar does not "support certain issues" that your tax return is allocating to those issues?

All that matters is that you can make a difference in the overall amount allocated in the end. I do not think it matters if a specific dollar ends up going towards it or not.

Anyway, I do not really have anything more concerning the logistics of the notion. Perhaps Homes can expand upon this.

Ever do research on the number of homosexual predators who have already infiltrated the Scouts, and who have been caught and convicted for doing their evils with the boys?

And responsible, dignified homosexuals should be punished for the indiscretions of others? However, as I said, they can do what they want.

Yep, and if they want to pander to perverts, that's their choice. The issue is filth on publicly accessible channels.

Well, I am sure my definition of unacceptable filth will differ from yours regarding content on such channels, however, I am fine with strict rules concerning what can be aired at certain times of the day.

They already do.

On a channel by channel basis? I have only heard of various packages that contain a predetermined channel selection.

That's a standard liberal Straw Man that I've seen used by gun-grabbers at least a hundred times. I'm surprised that you didn't add ICBMs and nuclear devices to the list.

Ok, since you brought that up, what in the Constitution defines where the line can be drawn exactly?

There are over 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws. There are also crimes committed with firearms. Conclusion: the laws don't work because by definition criminals ignore and violate laws. Therefore the idiotic notion that more laws will make a difference is ludicrous. Such laws penalize only the law-abiding. But ask the Brits about that.

I am just curious as to what you believe the practical applications of fully automatic weapons would be for the ordinary US citizen.

This is my idea of gun control.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/LibsPlay.jpg

Well, I don't have problems with handguns at all. :)

Wolfcounsel

10-01-2006, 08:16 PM

"I see absolutely no difference in sacrificing potential life to bring one new life into the world and sacrificing potential life to sustain the life already in this world." --Trevelyan

There is a huge difference between millions of sperm dying in the fertilization of an egg, and scientists growing embryos to bring into being a normal or above normal human. Also, one does not kill an innocent life to benefit another life. That is murder.

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 08:24 PM

Wolfcounsel

10-01-2006, 08:56 PM

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 09:08 PM

"You do know that embryos are created and later discarded during the IVF process to create one new life right?" --Trevelyan

Is that supposed to make it okie-dokie or what?

My point is that you quoted one of my posts that was directed at DD, who appears to have no qualms over IVF. This is about seeing no difference between the sacrifices inherent with IVF and those of embryonic stem-cell research, not embryonic stem-cell research and the sacrifice of sperm cells during natural conception.

Wolfcounsel

10-01-2006, 09:36 PM

"My point is that you quoted one of my posts that was directed at DD, who appears to have no qualms over IVF." --Trevelyan

Of course, he also stated that IVF supports life rather than exploits death. You neglected to include that part.

--------------------------------------------------------

"Anyway, if IVF is alright, I do not see the point of not utilizing the leftover embryos from IVF." --Trevelyan

"This is about seeing no difference between the sacrifices inherent with IVF and those of embryonic stem-cell research," --Trevelyan

---------------------------------------------------------

To grow a new baby for infertile couples, a number of them die. But to use their remains to improve a cripple's life is using the innocent to make better one who is not completely healthy.

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 09:50 PM

This research is also aiming to develop uses that would save lives. It is not all about making cripples walk.

So you call it murder, however, you seem to condone murder so one individual is granted the benefit of being brought into this world.

I will say it again; the only opinion that differs from mine that I respect on this matter is that of individuals who oppose both IVF and embryonic stem-cell research. Yes, it is real dignified to just throw away embryos as opposed to utilizing them to potentially save lives in the future.

Bringing new life into the world, curing disease, and saving lives are all in support of life in my opinion.

Wolfcounsel

10-01-2006, 10:22 PM

"Yes, it is real dignified to just throw away embryos as opposed to utilizing them to potentially save lives in the future." --Trevelyan

And think of the new industries that could spring up for pure experimenting on embryos and fetuses in varying stages of development. Boo-coo money to be made, and people are throwing away perfectly good dead embryos.

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 10:28 PM

DoctorDoom

10-01-2006, 10:34 PM

Create more embryos if IVF leftover embryos are not sufficient. Hopefully, however, the other forms of stem-cells end up being adequate alternatives, and offer everything embryonic stem-cell treatments potentially could or more.Lad, are you stating that we are God? We CREATE nothing. An embryo comes from the fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon. And from whence do ova come? A: from women. And if there emerges a need for millions of embryos, what will that entail?

Will the ova be bought at Joe's Gamete Emporium and Service Station?

Wolfcounsel

10-01-2006, 10:34 PM

"Why did you bring up fetuses?" --Trevelyan

By that do you mean a fetus and an embryo have different human rights?

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 10:48 PM

Lad, are you stating that we are God?

If this question must be raised here, I honestly do not see why it would not apply to IVF. It is non-natural creation of life at the expense of other life.

And if there emerges a need for millions of embryos, what will that entail?

IVF embryos and egg donation as far as I know. I do not know how many embryos that would be needed if the research eventually proves fruitful and superior to other stem-cell forms, nor do I know all the logistics involved in incorporating embryonic stem-cell treatment in medical practice. I do not see why such research would be pursued if its results could never be employed in healthcare.

DoctorDoom

10-01-2006, 10:48 PM

So you call it murder, however, you seem to condone murder so one individual is granted the benefit of being brought into this world.WHO the hell is being "murdered" in IVF? Do you have even a vague understanding of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF-ET) (http://www.ivf.com/ivffaq.html)? The process provides couples with zero chance for a normal pregnancy to at least have a shot at having a baby. The notion that the process is murder is, to be exceedingly kind, ludicrous.

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 10:55 PM

"Why did you bring up fetuses?" --Trevelyan

By that do you mean a fetus and an embryo have different human rights?

No, not a viable embryo. An embryo created in a petri dish, on the other hand, is only going to survive for so long before it would have to be implanted in a uterus. Only then would it be viable.

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 11:05 PM

WHO the hell is being "murdered" in IVF? Do you have even a vague understanding of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF-ET) (http://www.ivf.com/ivffaq.html)? The process provides couples with zero chance for a normal pregnancy to at least have a shot at having a baby. The notion that the process is murder is, to be exceedingly kind, ludicrous.

From your link:

"Q: What happens to any extra pre-embryos?

A: A maximum of four pre-embryos will be transferred to the uterus for possible implantation. Patients will have several other options regarding the disposition of the remaining pre-embryos. One option is to freeze pre-embryos for your later use. Other options are to donate or simply dispose of them. Excess pre-embryos, if any, belong to you, and you will determine what is to be done."

This is what I am referring to. I am sure there are not enough homes if all the embryos were donated, and as we know, they are not all donated. If they are frozen, not all embryos survive the unfreezing process if the intent was to use them for a later pregnancy. Then, as mentioned, they are simply disposed of at times.

So, embryos are created, yet not all of them survive due to the process. So why is creating embryos for stem-cell research murder, but creating embryos knowing some will die through the IVF process is not?

<DL><DD><DD>

</DD></DL>

Wolfcounsel

10-01-2006, 11:11 PM

Trevelyan

10-01-2006, 11:19 PM

"An embryo created in a petri dish, on the other hand, is only going to survive for so long before it would have to be implanted in a uterus. Only then would it be viable." --Trevelyan

The same way an adult paralyzed from the neck down would depend on outside help to survive, eh? One is human and the other is not, or what?

No, it is a human embryo in a petri dish; however, I care more about the embryo that is eventually going to become a person and people already here.

Now if you place the same value on an embryo in a petri dish that is not going to develop, then you should reconsider your support of IVF.

Wolfcounsel

10-02-2006, 06:24 AM

An embryo created in a Petri dish will stand a chance of survival implanted in a uterus, the same way a paralyzed person will stand a chance of survival with the help of another person.

Who told you I supported IVF?

Peachdiane

10-02-2006, 07:46 AM

Um, that is all that comes to mind at the moment. So go ahead, label me!

Well you're far left of me. :smirk:

Rhino

10-02-2006, 08:36 AM

I do not want to ban guns, but I do not believe that certain restrictions on them are unconstitutional. It merely states that we have the right to bear arms. There is no mention of the degree to which we may do so.

I am for free speech, and I oppose government organizations such as the FCC having authority over media content on cable or satellite radio, which is a reality some politicians are seeking.I do not want to ban free speech, but I do not believe that certain restrictions on it are unconstitutional. It merely states that we have the right to free speech. There is no mention of the degree to which we may do so.

DoctorDoom

10-02-2006, 10:03 AM

So, embryos are created ...They are NOT created. They are the result of a God-created process.

... yet not all of them survive due to the process.Clue time: although not all of them are used, all of them are intended to provide an opportunity for an infertile couple to have a baby.

So why is creating embryos for stem-cell research murder, but creating embryos knowing some will die through the IVF process is not?You are far more intelligent than you are demonstrating in this thread. Ergo, you are deliberately being obtuse. One more time ...

IFV embryos are "created" from eggs and sperm from the future parents, for the specific purpose of providing them with a child. The intent is a new life.

Embryos for ECSR will never become children. That is not their purpose. They are "created" to die for their cells. That's inhuman.

BTW, you still have not explained where the millions or billions of embryos will come from to support treatments on a large scale.

LightHorseman

10-02-2006, 10:42 AM

I have no care to pick apart your post, it was thoughtful, interesting, and for the most part reasonable. The only point I wish to contend is:

I completely disagree. First, you can't get "high quality" anything from government. Second, parents should be responsible, and in fact are the only ones with a 100% vested interested in making sure their children grow, learn, develop, and become productive citizens, persons, and souls. When one abdicates that much time to government, isn't it safe to say that the government then has even more influence over the child than the parent? Wouldn't this be an excellent way to destroy a nation?

Well its not that I don't understand what you are saying, but I am yet to be convinced that the government of any nation is bent on destroying it. While I say that the Gov. has a duty to provide high quality education... allow me to qualify that further by saying that parents have a responsibility to hold the government education system accountable. I guess my concern with the alternative homeschooling is that the State just has access o broader resources than the individual, and private school is expensive. Personally, I went to a private school until year 10, and received a first rate education. I would LIKE to see everyone given access to the same level of education though. Remember what I said about everyone receiving an equal starting point? well, I see education as that starting point. Hmm... shall we agree that its a complex issue and probably requires greater than a paragraph's worth of discussion to be resolved?

Rhino

10-02-2006, 10:48 AM

I think that God allowing evolution to be the mechanism by which he arrives at Us is far more elegant than blinking everything into existance in 6 days.Maybe he crossed his arms too, like on "I Dream of Jeannie".

Peachdiane

10-02-2006, 10:59 AM

Regarding Creation, I'm curious why people think a day = 24 hours.

LightHorseman

10-02-2006, 11:02 AM

Maybe he crossed his arms too, like on "I Dream of Jeannie".

Please. He CLEARLY wiggled his nose like Samantha...

Hey, seriously, whatever version of Theology floats your boat, go nuts. My point is, that science can not explain whether it was an arm cross, or nose wiggle, or any other sort of Theistic mechanism, so its not really appropriate to include any sort of Theistic ideas in a science classroom.

LightHorseman

10-02-2006, 11:04 AM

Regarding Creation, I'm curious why people think a day = 24 hours.

There are quite a few literalists out there who will tell you "Genesis says 6 days, it MEANS 6 days". I'm much happier with the idea that "day"= "a period of time", but there are still quite a few problems with taking the Genesis account as anything other than an alegory... not least of all that it says that plants were created before the Sun... and that whole firmament thing seperating the waters...

Rhino

10-02-2006, 11:04 AM

When there are differing theories, the standard practice is to include them all.

LightHorseman

10-02-2006, 11:11 AM

When there are differing theories, the standard practice is to include them all.

Dangerous ground to make that claim... if we include the Judeo Christian creation as a plausible theory, what about the Hindu one? or the Shinto one? Or any of the 700 Australian Aboriginal ones, or 500 Native american ones? Or Inca, or... you get my drift. Not to mention Lamarckianism, unrefined Darwinism, spontaneous Genesis, Cosmic Panspermia...

The standard practice is to utilise the theory for which there is most empirical support. At the moment, that would apear to be Evolutionary theory. I remain open to the possibility that someone will come up with an example of Theistic intervention in a biological setting, but until such time, science is limited to going with the theories they can show evidence of.

Rhino

10-02-2006, 11:27 AM

I should have specified "widely held". I agree that the most empirical theory gets top billing, but if there are widely held countering theories, those are typically presented. To exclude countering theories smacks of totalitarianism. Should we exclude differing theories on economics or sociology? Those abound.

Trevelyan

10-02-2006, 12:21 PM

I do not want to ban free speech, but I do not believe that certain restrictions on it are unconstitutional. It merely states that we have the right to free speech. There is no mention of the degree to which we may do so.

But if you read my posts I did not say anything about having the complete right to put any content on any channel at any time of the day.

Rhino

10-02-2006, 12:25 PM

But if you read my posts I did not say anything about having the complete right to put any content on any channel at any time of the day.I was merely pointing out the dichotomy.

And by the way, politicians are not seeking to have the FCC have authority over media content on cable or satellite radio. They already have that authority, and always have. But the extent of their regulation so far has been based on broadcasters not having the complete right to put any content on any channel at any time of the day. Are you saying there is an attempt to have them go farther than that?

Trevelyan

10-02-2006, 12:50 PM

Clue time: although not all of them are used, all of them are intended to provide an opportunity for an infertile couple to have a baby.

But it is known that not all of them are going to become babies, thus the result is their death. Again, that is my point. I do not see how one can support this and not ESCR. Life is created knowing full well some of it will die and not develop.

You are far more intelligent than you are demonstrating in this thread. Ergo, you are deliberately being obtuse.

Well, at least you have recognized my genius in the past. :)

IFV embryos are "created" from eggs and sperm from the future parents, for the specific purpose of providing them with a child. The intent is a new life.

Embryos for ECSR will never become children. That is not their purpose. They are "created" to die for their cells. That's inhuman.

Yes, they are created to die for their cells to potentially help save the lives of those already here through ESCR, just as some embryos will die so one can develop into a baby through IVF.

The difference here is that you view sacrifice acceptable to benefit the embryos that actually do develop into babies, whereas I, on the other hand, not only find this acceptable, but I also extend this view of acceptable sacrifice to include saving the lives of those already here.

I want to be a doctor, so methods that would save the lives of patients is an issue of personal importance to me. Just as there are acceptable casualties in what are considered conventional wars, I also believe there are acceptable casualties in the "War on Disease."

BTW, you still have not explained where the millions or billions of embryos will come from to support treatments on a large scale.

I said this earlier in response to this question, and it is really all I have to say about it.

"IVF embryos and egg donation as far as I know. I do not know how many embryos that would be needed if the research eventually proves fruitful and superior to other stem-cell forms, nor do I know all the logistics involved in incorporating embryonic stem-cell treatment in medical practice. I do not see why such research would be pursued if its results could never be employed in healthcare."

Trevelyan

10-02-2006, 01:14 PM

I was merely pointing out the dichotomy.

And by the way, politicians are not seeking to have the FCC have authority over media content on cable or satellite radio. They already have that authority, and always have. But the extent of their regulation so far has been based on broadcasters not having the complete right to put any content on any channel at any time of the day. Are you saying there is an attempt to have them go farther than that?

I have heard stories in the past regarding certain politicians attempting to broaden FCC control over cable television and satellite radio. I do not recall particular names, so I just did a quick Google search:

"Constituent Mail Bag

From Chula Vista:
The President has expressed his support for extending the FCC's control over cable and satellite radio.
H.R. 1440 has been introduced to block the FCC from impeding on our freedoms. We cannot let our freedom of choice be taken from us! This country was founded on this freedom of speech and choice!
As my representative in the 51st district, I hope you will see that HR 1440 is Imperative to our freedom of choice.

Congressman Filner replies:
Thank you for contacting me regarding regulating cable television.
I wholeheartedly agree! The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should not have authority to regulate cable television or satellite radio. These forms of media are pay-for-service, and therefore are not in the scope of the public airwaves. As you have requested, I have co-sponsored H.R. 1440.
I appreciate your advocacy on this issue."

http://www.house.gov/filner/enews/0505.htm

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65734,00.html

Rhino

10-02-2006, 02:05 PM

Probably a difference between regulating the airwaves and regulating content, which are not the same things.

I agree with Filner.

HomeschoolrsRUs

10-02-2006, 02:21 PM

Well its not that I don't understand what you are saying, but I am yet to be convinced that the government of any nation is bent on destroying it.

Guess that depends upon one's definition of "destroying." Would you agree that it would be most advantageous for the 'enemy' (whomever that might be) to infiltrate through subversiveness? I do not agree on giving ANY government, no matter how benevolent or benign they might appear, that kind of absolute control.

While I say that the Gov. has a duty to provide high quality education... allow me to qualify that further by saying that parents have a responsibility to hold the government education system accountable.

Again, I disagree. Education is NOT the duty of the government, it is that of the parent. Government education is fine as an option, but should not be mandated or exclusive. I believe the parents/taxpayers should not only hold the government education system accountable, but they should be in charge of them completely, not the other way around.

I guess my concern with the alternative homeschooling is that the State just has access o broader resources than the individual, and private school is expensive.

That is a complete and utter falsehood and misconception. In fact, homeschool has MORE access to a broader range of resources than government schools -- have you check them lately? My husband WORKS for and in our local school system, they are way behind private schools when it comes to adequate and accurate textbooks, equipment, resources! Case in point, my family has gone through 5 different math curricula before we found the one that works for my son -- would the school have worked so hard to make sure my child succeeded in the area of mathematics? In the same year? And I can guarantee I pay less for MY children's education than would be spent in one year at a government institution! I won't argue this point with you further, sir, for you would surely lose.

I would LIKE to see everyone given access to the same level of education though.

A nice warm and fuzzy thought, save life isn't fair. At this point, we DO have as much equality regarding the level of education as possible, IF the parent(s) are willing to do what is necessary to achieve it. Sacrifice on the behalf of one's offspring is so outre these days though, wouldn't you say?

Remember what I said about everyone receiving an equal starting point?

Equal, how? You mean free? You mean without sacrifice? You mean without having to do anything to make it so? We all do start out equally, in the sense that we recognize life is not fair and life is not equal. It is up to each of us to make of it as we can and/or will.

well, I see education as that starting point. Hmm... shall we agree that its a complex issue and probably requires greater than a paragraph's worth of discussion to be resolved?

Very well, I've already shared my thoughts prior to your proposed truce. (Just for the record though, there IS an Education Forum (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=59) -- of which I just happen to be a Mod -- feel free to engage there if you so desire.)

DoctorDoom

10-02-2006, 05:17 PM

But it is known that not all of them are going to become babies, thus the result is their death. Again, that is my point. I do not see how one can support this and not ESCR. Life is created knowing full well some of it will die and not develop.Sorry, guy but the rationalization is specious. There is no possibility of equating the two. One is done with the intent of bringing a baby into the world for the people whose gametes were used. The other is breeding embryos like lab mice for the specific purpose of killing them for fanciful, foolish experiments.

FYI: The Basics About Stem Cells (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html)

gnome

10-02-2006, 06:28 PM

Sorry, guy but the rationalization is specious. There is no possibility of equating the two. One is done with the intent of bringing a baby into the world for the people whose gametes were used. The other is breeding embryos like lab mice for the specific purpose of killing them for fanciful, foolish experiments.

FYI: The Basics About Stem Cells (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html)

If one is OK with the former, it would seem logical to allow the use of discarded embryos; but with restrictions on creating embryos for that purpose. In fact, I would otherwise consider it wasteful...

DoctorDoom

10-03-2006, 12:04 PM

All 31 evolution-related posts have been moved to their own thread in the Evolution forum. If there are contextual "holes" in this thread, that's why. Any further posts on the subject will be moved there as well.

DoctorDoom

10-03-2006, 12:12 PM

If one is OK with the former, it would seem logical to allow the use of discarded embryos; but with restrictions on creating embryos for that purpose. In fact, I would otherwise consider it wasteful..."Discarded embryos" are not numerous. Therefore any serious level of research would require far more than can be supplied by IVF "spares". The only possibility is embryo farming. Would you care to tell us how that would be accomplished without harvesting female gametes by the thousands?

gnome

10-03-2006, 12:18 PM

"Discarded embryos" are not numerous. Therefore any serious level of research would require far more than can be supplied by IVF "spares". The only possibility is embryo farming. Would you care to tell us how that would be accomplished without harvesting female gametes by the thousands?

Maybe someone should ask stem cell researchers if they'd rather take what they can get than be cut off completely. See if they think that only a few are useless.

DoctorDoom

10-03-2006, 12:36 PM

Kid, like all libs, you're evading the issue. What is the value of ESCR if it has no practical purpose, and how can it have a practical purpose without a ready access to the millions or even billions of embryos that would be required if it should prove to be a miraculous nostrum? You're thinking in a narrow, "defend it at any cost" mindset without contemplating what it means in the future.

The use of ESCs on a commercial scale will require the availability of embryos on a commercial scale. Explain how that will be accomplished.

And read the linked article. Stem-cell-related medical marvels are not a done deal.

Timberwolf

10-03-2006, 04:28 PM

Regarding Creation, I'm curious why people think a day = 24 hours.
Because in the Genesis account the words "bokah" (morning) and "erev" (evening) are used in conjunction with "yom" (day). In EVERY instance in the Bible where that context is used, one literal 24 hour day is being described.

I know that God is consistent. Therefore, logic dictates that the "days" in the Creation account in Genesis are literal days.

Timberwolf

10-03-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Regarding Creation, I'm curious why people think a day = 24 hours. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
There are quite a few literalists out there who will tell you "Genesis says 6 days, it MEANS 6 days". I'm much happier with the idea that "day"= "a period of time", but there are still quite a few problems with taking the Genesis account as anything other than an alegory... not least of all that it says that plants were created before the Sun... and that whole firmament thing seperating the waters...
That is another argument for WHY Creation happened in 6 days...a plant can survive for a day or two without sunlight, can it not?

And what of the firmament separating the waters? Where do you think the water of the Noahic Flood came from? Genesis Chapter 7 tells us the "fountains of the great deep erupted". It has now been found out that there's evidence that the granite and basalt of Earth's crust were separated by a layer of salt water that was roughly 3/4 a mile in depth. That's a LOT of water as, it encompassed the entire globe.

Timberwolf

10-03-2006, 04:37 PM

Sorry Doc...I didn't see your post about moving the other posts until I had already posted the two prior to this one.

Peachdiane

10-03-2006, 04:54 PM

Because in the Genesis account the words "bokah" (morning) and "erev" (evening) are used in conjunction with "yom" (day). In EVERY instance in the Bible where that context is used, one literal 24 hour day is being described.

I know that God is consistent. Therefore, logic dictates that the "days" in the Creation account in Genesis are literal days.

Interesting! How do you answer those who quote II Peter, 3:8 (With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day.) I'm not trying to be difficult like the athiests, honest. I'm curious because my former Bible teacher and various pastors used the above verse as an example that God has His own timetable.

gnome

10-03-2006, 05:25 PM

That is another argument for WHY Creation happened in 6 days...a plant can survive for a day or two without sunlight, can it not?

I never took much stock in that sort of argument anyway... whether it's six days or six thousand years... if you suppose that God is directly intervening, he can surely keep plants alive as long as he wants with or without sunlight.

LightHorseman

10-03-2006, 05:41 PM

if you suppose that God is directly intervening, he can surely keep plants alive as long as he wants with or without sunlight.

Sure he COULD... seems like rather an odd way to go about it though, don't you think?

As for the firmament seperating the waters... its supposed to be seperating the waters ABOVE the Earth... i.e. the implication is that it is the vault of the sky... yet planes and rockets seem to pass through it with little interuptiuon, and there isn't a significant body of water on the other side. The rest of the flood account, well... again, works for me as an allegory, derived from the Black Sea inundation event, but to think that there was really a literal global flood and that every animal was represented on board the ark... Well aside from anything else, i want to know why penguins, kangaroos and bacteria don't rate a mention...

Timberwolf

10-03-2006, 08:51 PM

Interesting! How do you answer those who quote II Peter, 3:8 (With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day.) I'm not trying to be difficult like the athiests, honest. I'm curious because my former Bible teacher and various pastors used the above verse as an example that God has His own timetable.
I tell them that it's a red herring as, it has nothing to do with the Creation account in Genesis. In II Peter, he is merely pointing out the eternal nature of God, that He exists outside the parameters of time, to which we are slaves and that He will carry out His plan in HIS time not ours.

That passage also speaks to the "slackness" of God's judgement. Peter is letting the people know that God is not "slack" but is "patient and longsuffering"...and that Christ will return as a "thief in the night".

Anyway, it has always been my contention that those who use II Peter to justify a day not being a day (in Genesis) don't know the context of what's written in Genesis (not a slam, just an observation). I say that because Hebrew and Aramaic (and Greek) sometimes do not translate well into English and that, in reading the English version, one must make reference(s) to the Hebrew, Aramaic (and Greek) to get the proper context of the passage being read.

Timberwolf

10-03-2006, 08:57 PM

Sure he COULD... seems like rather an odd way to go about it though, don't you think?

As for the firmament seperating the waters... its supposed to be seperating the waters ABOVE the Earth... i.e. the implication is that it is the vault of the sky... yet planes and rockets seem to pass through it with little interuptiuon, and there isn't a significant body of water on the other side. The rest of the flood account, well... again, works for me as an allegory, derived from the Black Sea inundation event, but to think that there was really a literal global flood and that every animal was represented on board the ark... Well aside from anything else, i want to know why penguins, kangaroos and bacteria don't rate a mention...
God doesn't care about what you think you know, He only cares about the what you believe in your heart. Choose Him or reject Him, but don't rationalize His existence/non-existence. He DOES exist, He DID create the universe, Christ IS returning. Choose wisely.

...and you apparently didn't read my post about the "fountains of the great deep", or did you and are just choosing to feign ignorance?

LightHorseman

10-04-2006, 03:20 AM

...and you apparently didn't read my post about the "fountains of the great deep", or did you and are just choosing to feign ignorance?

Sorry. I did read it, and perhaps my response was poorly worded. My point, the fountains of the deep and the firmament are two different things, surely?

He DOES exist, He DID create the universe, Christ IS returning.

I agree.

Choose Him or reject Him, but don't rationalize His existence/non-existence.

I'm not attempting to rationalise his existence at all. I'm just saying that the Genesis account leaves much to be desired as a piece of writing intended to provide "proof".

Timberwolf

10-04-2006, 11:16 PM

Then, I suggest you re-read it...God's Word is Truth. The Genesis account is supported by geology, if one bothers to study it HONESTLY.

LightHorseman

10-05-2006, 02:31 AM

The Genesis account is supported by geology, if one bothers to study it HONESTLY.

I just read it again... I don't see how you reach that conclussion. In your own words, please support this statement?

Or at least, explain why older fossil forms are continuously deeper than more recent ones, rather than sorted by size, as we might expect in flood sediment

Timberwolf

10-06-2006, 07:20 PM

I apologize. I should've said "research" it honestly. Dr. Walt Brown has put together a very plausible counter theory to evolutionism. I invite you to read it.

www.creationscience.com (http://www.creationscience.com)

One thing I've found out is that jellyfish fossils are extremely rare, yet THOUSANDS of them exist in Wisconsin...in SEVEN different layers of strata.

If finding ONE is extremely rare, finding a thousand should boggle the mind. To suggest that such a ?catastrophic? event could occur in the same region at SEVEN different times in history is ludicrous...no, it is delusional...to be kind.

Why are there fossils at all? The process of a fossil forming is very precise and they do not form in the absence of a lot of fluid 'strata'...IOW, in the presence of a flood or a volcanic eruption...and a nasty one, at that. Wind and water erosion prevent fossilization most of the time.

Why are there no ocean trenches in the Atlantic Ocean? Why is the center of the Pacific Trench Zone within a few degrees of being opposite the exact middle of the Atlantic Ocean?

Why does every mountain range, except the Himalayas, parallel the Mid-Atlantic Ridge? (run North-South)

Were you aware that, according to physics, subduction is not possible?

The Sun is shrinking by roughly 5 feet per year...if the universe is billions of years old, explain HOW Mercury still exists as a planet.

Why are over 65% of the impact craters on the Moon on the side facing Earth?

Why is man the only sentient form of life on Earth. If life 'evolved', it stands to reason that more than one life form would have developed that trait.

How is it that some planets/moons rotate the "wrong" way?

Explain how fish could be frozen in the act of swimming, in mid-stream? Is it an 'accident' that water freezes from the top down? (It is the only liquid, to my knowledge, that behaves is such a manner)

There's a good start....

Timberwolf

10-06-2006, 07:33 PM

But, I think the subject is Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR).

ALL advances in treatment of the human condition, due to SCR, have been accomplished through the use of ADULT stem cells. Not ONE advancement has been achieved through the use of ESCs. Besides, both types of research are already legal. The only thing that is being debated is FEDERAL funding of ESCR.

Because that type of research appears to be fruitless and many advances in medical treatment are already viable due to ASCR, I see no reason whatsoever to continue the debate. ESCR is DOA.

BEST45CAL

10-06-2006, 09:47 PM

LightHorseman

10-07-2006, 02:52 AM

One thing I've found out is that jellyfish fossils are extremely rare, yet THOUSANDS of them exist in Wisconsin...in SEVEN different layers of strata. all fossilization is extremely rare. The fact that there are so many fossils out there suggests that there has been a really, REALLY long time where there has been life to fossilize. So the existance of statistically unlikely fossil finds indicates a huge number of candidates for fossilization across vast amounts of time, as much as it indicates some sort of divinely designed fossil bed.

If finding ONE is extremely rare, finding a thousand should boggle the mind. To suggest that such a ?catastrophic? event could occur in the same region at SEVEN different times in history is ludicrous...no, it is delusional...to be kind.

I admit I know little about fossil cnidarians. However, off the cuff, are the seven geological layers consistent with similar environments? If the sedimentation rates are the same, and the general environment is the same, I see no reason why the general rate of jellyfish fossilization shouldn't be the same across millions of years. Can you provide a link relating to this fossil bed, as I am unfamiliar with the example.

Counter question, even if this fossil bed seems statistically unlikely, how does its existence either support or disprove evolution, or creationism?

Why are there fossils at all? The process of a fossil forming is very precise and they do not form in the absence of a lot of fluid 'strata'...IOW, in the presence of a flood or a volcanic eruption...and a nasty one, at that. Wind and water erosion prevent fossilization most of the time.

fossilization also occurs at the bottom of lake beds with slow moving water, in amber, in mud puddles, at the bottom of the ocean, in tar pits. Again, it DOESN'T happen very often. And the fact that there are so many fossils (I believe some 60 million in the record) indicates the huge number of candidates for fossilisation, far more than one would expect to occur in 6,000 years.

Why are there no ocean trenches in the Atlantic Ocean?

Because the Atlantic central ridge is a dividing line between two seperating tectonic plates. Trenches occur at subduction points, not seperation points.

Counter question: this proves or disproves evolution or creationism how?

Why is the center of the Pacific Trench Zone within a few degrees of being opposite the exact middle of the Atlantic Ocean?

Curious coincidence? Given that tectonics means that such features move, there are going to be periods in the Earth's history where different features of interest line up, are parralell or opposite each other. Give it a few million years and some other feature will be directly opposite the mid Atlantic ridge.

Counter question: this proves or disproves evolution or creationism how?

Why does every mountain range, except the Himalayas, parallel the Mid-Atlantic Ridge? (run North-South)

Do they? I don't know this holds for the Appalachians, or the European Alps, or the Kimberley, or the Pacific Sea mounts...

If EVERY mountain range ran DUE north/South... I'd be far more curious, and suspect some sort of non chance intervention. But as it is, every mountain range has a 50/50 chance of running closer to N-S or E-W... are the current orientations REALLY statistically improbable?

Were you aware that, according to physics, subduction is not possible?

How do you figure? Who says? You can observe small scale subduction occuring on volcanic lava beds (Hawaii is a good point for observing this phenomenon) and at glass and steel factories involving molten material.
I'm going to need some more info on your statement before answering this one more comprehensively.

The Sun is shrinking by roughly 5 feet per year...if the universe is billions of years old, explain HOW Mercury still exists as a planet.

As I said in the other thread,

a. what is your source for this?
b. is this a CONSTANT rate of change. or is it possible that a million years ago it was expanding 5 feet a year?
c. 5 feet is a really piddling amount compared to the size of the Sun
d. Why does this effect the potential existance of Mercury?

Why are over 65% of the impact craters on the Moon on the side facing Earth?

I was unaware of this. I'm researching as we speak, bu my off the bat response is to say that since the Moon is tidally locked to Earth, therefore oine side always faces us, the other always faces away, and that I would therefore expect one side to have different properties than the other. The interplay of orbital trajectories is interesting and intricate, to say the least.

counter question: this proves or disproves evolution or creationism how?

Why is man the only sentient form of life on Earth. If life 'evolved', it stands to reason that more than one life form would have developed that trait.

a. depends on your definition of sentient
b. Many people would say sentience has evolved several times. Fossil evidence and modern observation suggest that, at the very least, orcas, dolphins, orang-utans, chimpanzees, homo sap. neanderthalensis, and erectus are/were all sentient. Some studies in avian neurology suggest that the nodular structure of birds brains allows a lower threshold in "critical mass" for consciousness and sentience, and there is research to suggest that some birds, parrots particularly, are at least as inteligent as some primates. There is every possibility that as more fossils are uncovered, more fossils that suggest inteligence will emerge.
c. Inteligence/sentience is an interesting trait, and the jury is still out as to the long term, species wide benefits it confers. It is also a highly specific adaption, so not necesarily one would expect to be super common in the record. Eyes are really, REALLY useful, and we find evidence of (I think) 22 seperate types of eyes arising. Inteligence/ sentience is not as useful, or at least, not as supportable (consider, would an entire eco system of sentient animals survive?) and therefore, inteligence/sentience does not arise, or is not supported as a beneficial mutation, as often.

How is it that some planets/moons rotate the "wrong" way?

Thats precisely what aglomeration/agregation theory predicts should happen. proto planets smacking together before everything settled into modern orbits would leave a distinctive mark on future motion. Note that all the retrograde bodies are fairly small and distant from their primary. Uranus DOES have an extreme tilt, but nothingthat a decent whack from an off centre planetesimal strike doesn't account for.

Note that all the planets DO orbit in the same direction, and in more or less the same plane, the same direction the Sun rotates, and in line with the Sun's equator. If some turned clockwise, and others counterclockwise, and some had orbits wildly out of line from the others, THEN we would have a real mystery.

counter question: retrograde astronomical bodies prove or disprove evolution or creationism how?

Explain how fish could be frozen in the act of swimming, in mid-stream? Is it an 'accident' that water freezes from the top down? (It is the only liquid, to my knowledge, that behaves is such a manner)

Counter question: Why would a "designed" fish be so stupid as to be frozen in the act of swimming?

Fish are cold blooded. As water temperature drops, fish become more and more sluggish. Eventualy, the rate of water subliming to ice is going to overtake the rate at which the fish is swimming. I don't really see how this one helps either side.

As for water freezing from the top down... liquid water has to loose energy to freeze. Water is a good insulator, therefore, it looses energy in the direction of the nearest surface, which is into the air (the bed of the water body being at the same temperature as the water) So, the water in proximity to the air will freeze first, then the water in nearest proximity to the ice will freeze next, and so on.

If you put something bellow freezing under water, ice crystals form on the object, and the ice mass moves outwards. I would suggest that any fluid with similar insulating properties to water will behave the same way.

Th only other "freezing" examples of liquids I can think of are to do with molten metal and rock, and these too, freeze from the "top down". Indeed, off the top of my head, I can't think of any liquids that freeze from bottom up except where the energy sink is at the bottom. Can you?

Isn't this fun! :)

Timberwolf

10-07-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Timberwolf http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/pdfus/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=477169#post477169)

One thing I've found out is that jellyfish fossils are extremely rare, yet THOUSANDS of them exist in Wisconsin...in SEVEN different layers of strata.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
all fossilization is extremely rare. The fact that there are so many fossils out there suggests that there has been a really, REALLY long time where there has been life to fossilize. So the existance of statistically unlikely fossil finds indicates a huge number of candidates for fossilization across vast amounts of time, as much as it indicates some sort of divinely designed fossil bed.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">If finding ONE is extremely rare, finding a thousand should boggle the mind. To suggest that such a ?catastrophic? event could occur in the same region at SEVEN different times in history is ludicrous...no, it is delusional...to be kind. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I admit I know little about fossil cnidarians. However, off the cuff, are the seven geological layers consistent with similar environments? If the sedimentation rates are the same, and the general environment is the same, I see no reason why the general rate of jellyfish fossilization shouldn't be the same across millions of years. Can you provide a link relating to this fossil bed, as I am unfamiliar with the example.

Counter question, even if this fossil bed seems statistically unlikely, how does its existence either support or disprove evolution, or creationism?

The fossils are in WISCONSIN...on dry land...fossilization requires the presence of liquid - as you and I have put forth...a flood, lake bottom, bog, tar pit, lava, amber etc - so where did the liquid come from? Check out the following:http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes22.html#wp1012558As for your counter-question, I'm not attempting to prove creation, nor disprove evolutionism. I stated such when I said what I'm providing is evidence that supports one and counters the other.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Why are there fossils at all? The process of a fossil forming is very precise and they do not form in the absence of a lot of fluid 'strata'...IOW, in the presence of a flood or a volcanic eruption...and a nasty one, at that. Wind and water erosion prevent fossilization most of the time. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
fossilization also occurs at the bottom of lake beds with slow moving water, in amber, in mud puddles, at the bottom of the ocean, in tar pits. Again, it DOESN'T happen very often. And the fact that there are so many fossils (I believe some 60 million in the record) indicates the huge number of candidates for fossilisation, far more than one would expect to occur in 6,000 years.
Unless there was a catastrophic, world wide flood about 5000 years ago...

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Why are there no ocean trenches in the Atlantic Ocean? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Because the Atlantic central ridge is a dividing line between two seperating tectonic plates. Trenches occur at subduction points, not seperation points.

Subduction does not occur...Dr. Brown has a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT and does the math for us (2<SUP>nd</SUP> link)...http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html#wp1545607http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes10.html#wp1097466Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Why is the center of the Pacific Trench Zone within a few degrees of being opposite the exact middle of the Atlantic Ocean? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Curious coincidence? Given that tectonics means that such features move, there are going to be periods in the Earth's history where different features of interest line up, are parralell or opposite each other. Give it a few million years and some other feature will be directly opposite the mid Atlantic ridge.

Start reading here:http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches.htmlDr. Brown's theory...he explains it so very much better than I can.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Why does every mountain range, except the Himalayas, parallel the Mid-Atlantic Ridge? (run North-South) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Do they? I don't know this holds for the Appalachians, or the European Alps, or the Kimberley, or the Pacific Sea mounts...
Yes, they do...

If EVERY mountain range ran DUE north/South... I'd be far more curious, and suspect some sort of non chance intervention. But as it is, every mountain range has a 50/50 chance of running closer to N-S or E-W... are the current orientations REALLY statistically improbable?
But, that is not the case. ONLY the Himalayas are "closer to" E-W...all others are "closer to" N-S.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Were you aware that, according to physics, subduction is not possible? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
How do you figure? Who says? You can observe small scale subduction occuring on volcanic lava beds (Hawaii is a good point for observing this phenomenon) and at glass and steel factories involving molten material.
I'm going to need some more info on your statement before answering this one more comprehensively.
You should already have your answer to this one. NO ONE has "observed" subduction regardless of what you've been told (in school or elsewhere). "Tectonic" subduction involves one plate (which is 30 - 60 MILES deep and, sometimes, hundreds (if not thousands) of MILES long), "slipping" under another. The pressures necessary for such to happen exceed the strength of the crust material.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The Sun is shrinking by roughly 5 feet per year...if the universe is billions of years old, explain HOW Mercury still exists as a planet. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
As I said in the other thread,

a. what is your source for this?
b. is this a CONSTANT rate of change. or is it possible that a million years ago it was expanding 5 feet a year?
c. 5 feet is a really piddling amount compared to the size of the Sun
d. Why does this effect the potential existance of Mercury?
First of all, I apologize for I misspoke. It's not 5' per year, it's 5' per HOUR.
A. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=165
B. Good question, but highly doubtful that the Sun would be expanding due to gravity, unless it was about to go supernova.
C. & D. Yes, but even at 5' per year, in 20 BILLION years that would be 100 BILLION feet...@ 5280' / mile that would be almost 19 million miles. Mercury, at its closest point to the Sun is 46 million miles. Were Mercury only 27 million miles from the Sun, it would melt (if for no other reason than that the Sun would be MUCH hotter).

At 5' / HOUR, 20 million years ago, the sun would've touched Earth.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Why are over 65% of the impact craters on the Moon on the side facing Earth? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I was unaware of this. I'm researching as we speak, bu my off the bat response is to say that since the Moon is tidally locked to Earth, therefore oine side always faces us, the other always faces away, and that I would therefore expect one side to have different properties than the other. The interplay of orbital trajectories is interesting and intricate, to say the least.
Yes, the interesting thing is Dr. Brown theorizes that the impact craters on the light side came from Earth. It is very interesting.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Why is man the only sentient form of life on Earth. If life 'evolved', it stands to reason that more than one life form would have developed that trait. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
a. depends on your definition of sentient

Let's stick with the dictionary on this one...Main Entry: sen·tient http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?sentie02.wav=sentient'))Pronunciation: <TT>'sen(t)-sh(E-)&nt, 'sen-tE-&nt</TT>Function: adjectiveEtymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>2 : AWARE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/aware)3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling Main Entry: aware http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?aware001.wav=aware'))Pronunciation: <TT>&-'wer</TT>Function: adjectiveEtymology: Middle English iwar, from Old English gewær, from ge- (associative prefix) + wær wary -- more at CO- (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/co-), WARY (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wary)1 archaic : WATCHFUL (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/watchful), WARY (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wary)2 : having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge Main Entry: self-aware·nessFunction: noun: an awareness of one's own personality or individuality ONLY humans have sentience...there's no evidence to support the notion that any other species possesses/d it.

b. Many people would say sentience has evolved several times. Fossil evidence and modern observation suggest that, at the very least, orcas, dolphins, orang-utans, chimpanzees, homo sap. neanderthalensis, and erectus are/were all sentient. Some studies in avian neurology suggest that the nodular structure of birds brains allows a lower threshold in "critical mass" for consciousness and sentience, and there is research to suggest that some birds, parrots particularly, are at least as inteligent as some primates. There is every possibility that as more fossils are uncovered, more fossils that suggest inteligence will emerge.
Fossils suggest that other forms of life existed. Period.

c. Inteligence/sentience is an interesting trait, and the jury is still out as to the long term, species wide benefits it confers. It is also a highly specific adaption, so not necesarily one would expect to be super common in the record. Eyes are really, REALLY useful, and we find evidence of (I think) 22 seperate types of eyes arising. Inteligence/ sentience is not as useful, or at least, not as supportable (consider, would an entire eco system of sentient animals survive?) and therefore, inteligence/sentience does not arise, or is not supported as a beneficial mutation, as often.
Sentience is not an adaptation. Were it such, more lifeforms would possess it.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">How is it that some planets/moons rotate the "wrong" way? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Thats precisely what aglomeration/agregation theory predicts should happen. proto planets smacking together before everything settled into modern orbits would leave a distinctive mark on future motion. Note that all the retrograde bodies are fairly small and distant from their primary. Uranus DOES have an extreme tilt, but nothingthat a decent whack from an off centre planetesimal strike doesn't account for.
Wrong answer. According to physics, were the BB the "beginning", EVERYTHING would rotate the same way. Your source is claiming the suspension of the laws of physics.

Note that all the planets DO orbit in the same direction, and in more or less the same plane, the same direction the Sun rotates, and in line with the Sun's equator. If some turned clockwise, and others counterclockwise, and some had orbits wildly out of line from the others, THEN we would have a real mystery.

Then, we have a real mystery.http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/cathteach/evolution13.htm1. Backward-Spinning Planets. All Planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards.2. Backward Orbits - All 63 moons in the Solar System should orbit their planets in the same sense, but at least six have backward orbits. Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Explain how fish could be frozen in the act of swimming, in mid-stream? Is it an 'accident' that water freezes from the top down? (It is the only liquid, to my knowledge, that behaves is such a manner) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Counter question: Why would a "designed" fish be so stupid as to be frozen in the act of swimming?
I thought you would figure out that the water froze REAL FAST...duh.

Fish are cold blooded. As water temperature drops, fish become more and more sluggish. Eventualy, the rate of water subliming to ice is going to overtake the rate at which the fish is swimming. I don't really see how this one helps either side.
You feigning ignorance? I said "in the act of swimming".

As for water freezing from the top down... liquid water has to loose energy to freeze. Water is a good insulator, therefore, it looses energy in the direction of the nearest surface, which is into the air (the bed of the water body being at the same temperature as the water) So, the water in proximity to the air will freeze first, then the water in nearest proximity to the ice will freeze next, and so on.

If you put something bellow freezing under water, ice crystals form on the object, and the ice mass moves outwards. I would suggest that any fluid with similar insulating properties to water will behave the same way.

Th only other "freezing" examples of liquids I can think of are to do with molten metal and rock, and these too, freeze from the "top down". Indeed, off the top of my head, I can't think of any liquids that freeze from bottom up except where the energy sink is at the bottom. Can you?

Wrong. The property we're discussion is unique to water (to the best of my knowledge, as it applies to naturally occurring compounds). It expands and becomes LESS dense as it freezes.http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/cool_experiments/index.htmlYou seem to be very close-minded. I suggest that you open your mind and entertain the idea that evolution is not the only explanation of "what is, was and shall be". In fact, it isn't even close to being the best explanation.

LightHorseman

10-10-2006, 02:28 AM

Dear Timberwolf...

You seem to be very close-minded. I suggest that you open your mind and entertain the idea that evolution is not the only explanation of "what is, was and shall be". In fact, it isn't even close to being the best explanation.

I'M closed minded? I'm sorry you feel that way. I can honestly say that I have read everything you have said and have attempted to maintain an open mind to the possibility that you have some new information that will convince me my current understanding of nature is flawed. Can you honestly say the same about your reading of what I have presented?

Allow me, if you will, to phrase it thusly.

I believe that so far, evolution is the best explanation of current biodiversity. I believe all science is falsifiable. Therefore, what will it take for me to shift my current understanding?

I will accept that evolution is incorreect when you can show me an example of a biological process that CANNOT be explained through the evolutionary mechanism. Note: Thats CANNOT, rather than "hasn't yet". Please note that arguments from incredulity and the general "what use is half a wing?" standards do not meet this criteria. Note also that proving evolution is incorrect does not automatically prove that creationism IS correct.

I wil accept Creationism or I.D. is correct when you can show me an experiment or observable phenomenon where there is a direct, theistic intervention in a biological process. Bacterial resistance to anti-biotics, I would suggest, is your best avenue of research in this direction, although mayflies or other short generation species may also be candidates.

Now, to maintian this spirit of "open mindedness"... will you please now tell me what evidence you would accept as proving that creationism is incorrect, or what evidence you would accept as supporting evolution?

If you want to come out and say, "nothing you can show me will shake my belief in creationsim", seriously, thats fine. Faith is a beautiful and undervalued commodity. However, I WOULD appreciate it, that if this is the case, that you refrain from calling ME closed minded in the future, and further, that you would stop saying that your belief is based on "science", as any scientific theory MUST be falsifiable.

PS. I'm just off to the shops to get dinner. When I get back, I will answer the rest of your post.

LightHorseman

10-10-2006, 04:07 AM

The fossils are in WISCONSIN...on dry land...fossilization requires the presence of liquid - as you and I have put forth...a flood, lake bottom, bog, tar pit, lava, amber etc - so where did the liquid come from? Check out the following:http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes22.html#wp1012558Ah, I see now. Well, jelly fish on dry land... would suggest that the land was once underwater. Now, I suspect you are about to invoke Noah's flood... but if that is the case, how do you explain your jellyfish coming from 7 seperate geological periods? Surely all your flood fossils should be in consistent geological material? I have no problem with the idea that what is now dry land may once have been underwater, and vice verse. See, for instant, the burgess shale being halfway up a mountain, or, conversely, the many coal seams that extend under modern sea beds.

As for your counter-question, I'm not attempting to prove creation, nor disprove evolutionism. I stated such when I said what I'm providing is evidence that supports one and counters the other.

OK, then how does anything where I have used this counter claim SUPPORT creation or COUNTER evolution?

Unless there was a catastrophic, world wide flood about 5000 years ago...

Of course. But which is there more empirical scientific data for? epochal geological shifting in sea level and surface height, or a singl catastrophic glabal flood 5000 years ago?

Subduction does not occur...Dr. Brown has a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT and does the math for us (2<SUP>nd</SUP> link)...http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html#wp1545607http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes10.html#wp1097466

Start reading here:http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches.html

Just saying "subduction does not occur" when I have provided examples, seems akin to the inquisitors saying "if the telescope shows things that can't be there, the telescope is flawed". I would hope that we can steer clear of such arguments.

Now, I have looked at Dr. Brown's discussion, and he makes some interesting points. However, he did not offer any proof AGAINST subduction or techtonic theory, just pointing to areas that current theory has not yet comprehensively explained. His basis for argument seems to be based on the argument from incredulity, which is a falacious one. However, I thank you for the link, and appre