>> ^lantern53:

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.
Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.
Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.
I'm a big believer in experience, myself.


lantern53, we've had some good times, but this will have to be my last post on the subject. Unless you make a worthwhile argument.

Point by point:

"Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions."

Bad joke, not factually off base, but minus one for style.

"Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does."

The definition of legislate: 'to perform the function of legislation; specifically: to make or enact laws' or 'to mandate, establish or regulate by or as if by legislation'

So, are you suggesting that the president only executes? The Supreme court only judges? I'm not calling you stupid, but your attempt to use language to cover your argument is. I think it's completely valid to use the word "legislate" to describe some of what the president does, as he has an effect on laws being made, even outside utilizing the veto. Besides, presidential contenders are often asked about legislation they would support. I wouldn’t think using this word would confuse anyone, unless they hadn't yet taken eighth grade American history.

"Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption."

Yeah, we're responding to what you wrote. See, when adults write things, we can tell things due to context and implication. It's not really an unfounded assumption on my part to infer that you were preaching the evils of premarital sex. This discussion is about a video concerning Santorum's views. You defended him. So, we'll assume you think he has valid ideas.

"My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage."

Okay, fine. Let's just ignore everything else. Here's your point. Same as last time, you are wrong. We can't define social problems like this and rate them from better to worse. Have you seen "Dead Poet's Society"? Remember when Robin Williams rips the intro out of their Literature textbook? He does that because the text was attempting to rate something as subjective as art. Here you're doing the same thing as that chart attempted in that movie, saying one subjective human experience is better than another. I bet you could come up with a handy chart too. Instead of a Literature text book, you're invoking religion or tradition as the authority when making such a claim. Either way, its BS.

"You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know."

Thank you, I will. Notice, I made this same point in my last post. I interpret the 'but in the end' bit as you saying: Just sleep around outside of marriage and you'll suffer, just wait.

"I'm a big believer in experience, myself."

Really? You don't seem to value experience if you think never having sex outside of marriage is the ideal path for all Americans. Some people would consider that inexperience. I consider it sad.

You quote The Blind Watchmaker and The Origin of Species but I highly doubt that you’ve read them yourself. If you haven’t then you’re not better than someone who is contesting the bible without having read it. You quote a LOT of scientists that you say are hostile to your position but again, have you actually read the works that you’re quoting from in their entirety? I doubt it.

Well, I have read them and I think it's fairly obvious that I understand the subject matter.

Here are just two things that I read recently that I think are worth repeating:

...degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR (Institute for Creation Research)...

....illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics....

I never made the argument that entropy can never decrease in a system. I made the argument that even if you want to use the energy of the sun to explain why life is becoming more complex, you haven't explained the information that makes that possible. More energy does not equal more order. I also don't know why you keep bringing up articles from the institution of creation research and expect me to defend them. I am more than willing to admit that there are some terrible theories by creationists out there, just as there are terrible theories by secular scientists.

For myself, I am only a materialist because there isn’t any demonstrable, non-anecdotal, reproducible evidence for the existence of anything non-material. I hope you can understand that. There is the appearance of design and there is DNA, and we don’t know how everything got started but that’s not good enough for me to believe that it was designed, I need something more concrete because that is the criteria for which I will justify something as believable. I’d be very interested in some sort of evidence like that but it hasn’t happened yet and conjecture just doesn’t work for me so I’ll reserve judgment but maintain doubt and that’s all there is to it.

I can understand your position as a materialist, having formally been one. I did not see any evidence for God or spirit either, and it really rocked my world to discover that there was more, and that material reality is only a veil to a larger reality. It is mind blowing to discover that everything that you know is in some way, wrong.

I think there is some very good evidence pointing towards a Creator, but that isn't going to get you there necessarily. It seems to me though, after talking with you a bit, that if there is a God, you would want to know about it. Maybe you're not terribly interested in pursuing the subject at the moment but you now strike me as someone who is open to the truth. If He does exist, would you want to hear from Him? If He let you know, would you follow Him?

On the scope of evidence, I think the two of the most powerful arguments are the information in DNA and the fine-tuning of physical laws. There is no naturalistic process which can produce a code, and that is what DNA is. It is a digital code which stores information and is vastly superior to anything we have ever designed. It is a genetic language which has its own alphabet, grammar, syntax, and meaning. It has redudancy and error correction, and it is an encoding and decoding mechanism to transmit information about an organism. Biologists actually use linguistic analysis to decode its functions. You also have to realize that the message is not the medium. In that, like all information, you can copy the information in DNA to storage device like a hard drive, and then recode it later with no loss in information. This is a pretty good article on the information in DNA:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/

The fine tuning evidence is also very powerfully because it is virtually impossible for the laws to have come about by chance. It's important to understand what fine tuning actually means. I'll quote Dr Craig:

"That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist."

So it's not a question whether the Universe itself is finely tuned for life, it is a question of how it got that way. In actuality, the odds of it happening are far worse than winning the powerball lottery over 100 times in a row. Random chance simply cannot account for it because there are dozens of values that must be precisely calibrated, and the odds for some of these values happening by chance is greater than the number of particles in the Universe! For instance, the space-energy density must be fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power, an inconceivably huge number. That's just one value out of dozens. Many scientists understand this.

Here are some quotes from some agnostic scientists, which a couple of Christians thrown in:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Just because the universe and life might have the appearance of design doesn’t mean it was designed. After all, we might all be brains in vats being experimented on by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and all of this is simply like the matrix. Maybe Déjà vu is evidence that it’s true but there simply isn’t any reason to believe it just like there isn’t any reason to believe in any gods.

But if that were true then the Universe is designed, and this is simply some kind of computer program. In any case, although we could imagine many scenerios I am talking about something very specific; That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. Moreover, that you can know Him personally, today.

All of the concepts of god and gods have been moved back every time we discover naturalistic explanations where once those gods were accredited. What makes you think that it’s any different with these things? Just because we don’t know what’s behind the veil doesn’t mean that the idea of someone pulling the levers is a better explanation than a currently unknown natural, non-agency explanation. If we don’t know, then we don’t know and putting a god in the place of “we don’t know” isn't a good way of helping us learn more about our universe

The primary question is whether the Universe has an intelligent causation. You believe that Universes, especially precisely calibrated and well-ordered ones just happen by themselves. I happen to think that this is implausible to say the least. You're acting like it's not a valid question, and because we can describe some of the mechanisms we see that we can rule out an intelligent cause, which is simply untrue. You could describe every single mechanism there is in the Universe, but until you explain how it got here, you haven't explained anything. The real question is not how they work but why they work and that question can only be answered by answering why they exist in the first place.

It is also just a fallacy to say that because some peoples beliefs about God have been proven false, that means all beliefs about God are false. Scientists used to believe that there were only seven planets and that the Earth was flat. Does that mean that all ideas scientists have are false? No, and neither does it mean that all beliefs about God are false because people have had ridiculous beliefs about God.

The God I believe in is not ridiculous, and the belief in His existence has led to ideas that formed western civilization and propelled modern science itself. The idea that we can suss out Universal laws by investigating secondary causes is a Christian one, that came from the belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws.

It is also not a brake to doing science to believe that God created the Universe. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in God. People like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Max Planck, Mendel and Einstein. It certainly didn't stop them from doing great science.

Also, as I have explained, it is not a God of the gaps argument when God is a better explanation for the evidence.

We know that the universe, space-time, matter had a finite beginning but we can’t say anything at all about that beginning with any certainty. We can’t even say that whatever was that caused the universe is spaceless, or timeless. We just don’t know. This is the god of the gaps argument that started this whole thing. You’re putting a god in as the explanation for what is effectively a gap in our knowledge without anything solid to go off of. It would not be a god of the gaps argument if we eventually could know with a high degree of certainty that there is a god there fiddling with the controls but we don’t. That is the crux of this whole debate. That is why “I don’t know” is a better answer than “A god did it” because it’s absolutely verifiably true where as a god is not.

The ultimate cause of the Universe must be timeless because it must be beginningless, according to logic. I'll explain. You cannot get something from nothing, I think we both agree on that. So if the Universe has a cause, it must be an eternal cause, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes for the Universe. The buck has to stop somewhere. This points to an eternal first cause, which means that cause is timeless. If it is timeless it is also changeless because change is a property of time. If it is changeless it is also spaceless, because anything which exists in space must be temporal, since it is always finitely changing relation to the things around it. It's timelessness and spacelessness makes it immaterial, and this also makes it transcendent. I think it is obvious that whatever created the Universe must be unimaginably powerful. So we have something which already closely describes the God of the bible, and we can deduct these things by using logic alone.

We just don’t know if the universe is entirely regressable into some sort of endless loop which folds in on itself, or something else, or even if there is a god or not. Furthermore, I hope you look into what physicist mean by “out of nothing” because it doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It took me a while to understand what it meant and to be honest, it is a bit of a deceptive word play but it’s only that way because there isn’t another way to describe it. I don't actually believe that the universe came from "nothing". I don't know how it all started, so therefore, I have no belief. I don't need an answer to the big questions. I can say "I don't know" just fine and leave it at that.

“A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny

British physicist P.C.W. Davies writes, “The coming-into-being of the universe as discussed in modern science…is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Physicist Victor Stenger says “the universe exploded out of nothingness the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

I think we can both agree that it is better to know than not to know. That's been one of your primary arguments against the existence of God, that we simply cannot rest of the laurels of God being the Creator because that will lead to ignorance. I have already demonstrated that there is no actual conflict with belief in God and doing good science, so your argument is invalid, but I think it's ironic that on the other side of it, you are arguing that ignorance is a good thing and leads to better science. That you're even intellectually satisified with not knowing. I hope you can see the contradiction here.

The reason why I personally don’t find the whole god argument all that interesting, and the reason why I don’t actually care about it, is because it makes a heck of a lot of claims regarding the nature of god and it’s properties which just can’t be verified. There is nothing that we can concretely discover about god and no predictions that we can make which could eventually be verified meaningfully. How can we possibly know if creator is timeless, or spaceless, unimaginably powerful, transcendent, unembodied, etc? Is it rational to believe that; do you have an equal ratio of evidence to belief? What predictions can we actually make about this god(s). All we have are books and stories written and passed down throughout history. Everything else is just unjustified belief to me.

As I explained above, we can make several predictions about God based on the evidence. Belief in God is rational and can be justified. However, I understand that until you have a personal experience, it is probably going to be unconvincing to you, since this is way you see the world. You demand evidence, and lucky for you, God provides evidence. If you asked Him to come into your life, He would demonstrate it to you. He provided evidence to me, and I know you He will provide to you, especially if you take a leap of faith ask Him for it.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

Not that I really care to defend Mitt Romney on anything, but he wasn't "caught" with money in the Caymans. Not only is it legal to invest money there, but he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states. When the liberal media put out the story, they let you draw the inference, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. Yes, it gives certain tax advantages, like that isn't normal to invest your money in places that gives you those advantages. This is much ado about nothing. It's his 15 percent rate that he pays because most of his income is capital gains that is more eye opening.

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

So in other words, you have such a faith in your position that you aren't even interested in talking about it. You've just admitted that you are completely closed minded to the existence of God, and you're talking to me about confirmation bias? You are a poster child for confirmation bias.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

Actually, what I was doing was disputing your claim that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems. The whole of scientific findings say that the 2nd law applies everywhere at all times, and this is very widely agreed upon. Your claim of cherry picking is bogus; the facts in them are plainly stated and from witnesses hostile to my overall position, which gives them even more weight. If those facts do not match reality, feel free to point out how so. Again, you are coming from a complete lack of substance, saying I am doing this or that, without actually having any real evidence to back up your assertions. If you're not interested in talking about things that require you to demonstrate an actual knowledge of the subject matter, please stop making baseless claims about what I am doing or back them up.

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

My argument is not a God of the gaps argument. I am not suggesting because we don't understand something, God did it. I am saying that God is a better explanation for the evidence. I am saying that even if you were to explain every mechanism in the Universe, you still haven't gone any farther to say that the uniformity in nature which upholds the physical laws that causes those mechanisms to operate isn't better explained by Agency. Unless you can demonstrate a purely naturalistic origin of the Universe, you have no case against Agency. This isn't to mention things like the fine tuning of physical laws, the information in DNA, and the appearance of design in biological systems. They are all better explained by a Creator.

Further, when you talk about faith, there are many examples in science. No one has ever seen macro evolution happening, yet scientists have great faith that it occured. There is absolutely no hard evidence for it, only a just-so story based on very questionable inference from the fossil record. The major predictions of evolutionary theory have all actually been falsified by the fossil record, which would be enough to torpedo any theory, but they are committed to it regardless of what the facts say:

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin

harvard professor of zoology and biology

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

That's wonderful, but until you demonstrate a knowledge of the subject matter which is not inferior to my own (ala, believing the 2nd law doesnt apply to biological systems), everything that you have said here is irrelevent. Even if everything you said here is true and I understood nothing about this, you have shown you understand even less than that. However, I am going to give you more credit than that, and I would hope, but not expect, for you to do the same, however thus far you have only worked to try to discredit me. That is a logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack. It is a sad testament to atheists that there are only a very few out there willing to engage in rational discourse and not lower themselves to mockery and ridicule. I know rational discourse is possible because I have seen it in debates, and have found it on the internet from time to time. Overall though, it is a very bad advertisement for your point of view.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Again, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Your confirmation bias meter reads at 100 percent. My claims stand on their own and so do the quotations which flatly refute your claim. Feel free to show me scientific literature which supports your case at any time.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

>> ^doogle:

Anyone asking more from Mittens is asking to be lied to and to be placated. I for one respect the guy for being clear about his stance and not playing to identity politics.


The guy didn't want to be lied to or placated. He wanted a simple answer. Romney, were he as "clear about his stance" as you infer, could have said; "I'm sorry, but you would be arrested." Of course, maybe that would be being TOO "clear about his stance" which you so admire.

@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.

QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.

Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?
>> ^eric3579:

Dont you think maybe these results may be more closely tied to money (poverty) and or education then your statistics which seem to infer that it has something to do with the color of your skin. ...or maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
>> ^quantumushroom:
68.7% of Blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm [archived]
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments. Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm#fig1
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata96/descript.htm

What percentage of these stats are the direct result of the welfare state acting as a morality-free surrogate for Black fathers and husbands? A near-70% illegitimacy rate is unsustainable, and Whites are 'catching up' with a present illegitimacy rate of 40%.
How has being loyal Democrats "helped" Black Americans?

Dont you think maybe these results may be more closely tied to money (poverty) and or education then your statistics which seem to infer that it has something to do with the color of your skin. ...or maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
>> ^quantumushroom:

68.7% of Blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm [archived]
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments. Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm#fig1
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata96/descript.htm

What percentage of these stats are the direct result of the welfare state acting as a morality-free surrogate for Black fathers and husbands? A near-70% illegitimacy rate is unsustainable, and Whites are 'catching up' with a present illegitimacy rate of 40%.
How has being loyal Democrats "helped" Black Americans?

>> ^heropsycho:

And, sadly, lots of practice. That's the scariest part is knowing he's probably done this a lot. Not kick ass, extremely dangerous.
>> ^BoneRemake:
This is kick ass if nothing less.
Skills and balls to that driver, you do not maneuver like that without knowing what you are doing.



Yes, the thoughts you laid out are fairly standard and would come to most people, Not I ; you infer quite a bit from this situation, you seem to build a back story and life for this truck, you do not know anything about the driver, you assume that it was done on roads that where filled with school bus' full of children, you assume that this guy works for someone else and is not driving his own rig/business. You assume so much about this and can not enjoy the video for what it actually is at its base point.

Relax guy !

>> ^quantumushroom:

This sums it up.


It's funny, the cartoon is semi accurate, but most rational people don't give a fuck if democrats aren't preaching family values/anti-gay propaganda apart from right wing religious types...

From your link...

http://sycamorecreekchurch.org

Says it all really.

ps. Actually, the cartoon isn't quite accurate, the bar should be higher and the elephant should be crawling through the mud under it. To infer that there was any actual effort invested in to holding to the standards he professes is ludicrous.

If by spirit, I can infer electrical state, then I'm cool with that.

In general, faith is a mechanism to stop asking questions, this is what I mean when it detracts curiosity. I'm glad yours is not like that.

>> ^enoch:

@qwiz665
right on brother.
i am glad you posted that last comment.people needed to see that you were not some rabid atheist raging against a theosophic world.
you rage against bigotry,incuriosity,hypocrisy and the dumbing down of your fellow man by way of religious decree.
and on that point my brother i would stand side by side with you.
on your points that my faith somehow detracts from my curiosity or wonder is patently wrong.it is quite the opposite and i am sure it is for most people of faith.the fundamentalist is the one who struggles with new discoveries,because those discoveries may contradict holy writ.
i am not shackled by such limitations.
in fact,every discovery man has made has only illuminated the wonder and brilliance of this creative universe.
if we were to trim down the myriad redundancies between my faith and an atheist it would simply be this:(this of for you too @ghark)
we are creatures of spirit made manifest by flesh.
thats it.we are spiritual beings.
that spirit is the spark of the divine and reflects the nature of the divine.
bill hicks said it right:

Sorry, I don't know you, but from what I can infer from your post you live in the States? You don't "subsidize" anything in Canada. Certainly not the health care system. Who's this 'we' you're talking about?

>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

"I'm sure that there were some private institutions that did more than inconvenience minorities before the 1960s because they discriminated, but guess what? That's not applicable today. If Taco Bell says no more white people allowed, the white people will go next door! Barely even an inconvenience."


I, as you may infer, am not white. I find it is futile to argue with many white people about overt discrimination, because they have never encountered it. Also to the credit of many households and parents, many white kids don't grow up around overt racists. As a result, they only see discrimination as an intellectual problem.

I have only seen two instances where previously disagreeing white people start to appreciate my point of view:

1) Experience direct discrimination in a non-white majority country: I live in China, and have visited Japan, Asian Pacific countries and African countries for business and pleasure. I often travel with friends and colleagues, many of whom are white westerners. I can tell you that often when white people are denied doing something very ordinary, like visiting a restaurant, solely because they are white (or rather non-Chinese, non-Japanese, etc), a usual response is them completely losing their minds. At that moment, when they are directly denied entry into a private establishment for something incidental as their race, they feel the humiliation and the anger associated with the experience. After such a personal experience, a productive conversation can happen about discrimination in the States. There still may not be agreement, but at least the discussion will have more depth than "Save the Country!!!".

2) Experience an openly American racist culture firsthand. A white buddy of mine would have sworn on a stack of bibles that the attitudes that are behind discrimination are past us all---until she visited her cousins in Louisiana. She later recounted to me that she was in shock at the free use of the word "nigger", and the half-joking fantasies about shooting and killing 'coons', among other things. I think she gets it now; at least she understands why I would not want to let these people out of the proverbial asylum by repealing the 64 Act, or its derivatives.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I like when his balls fell out.

I do not like the descriptive words you used. Downvote.

Ohhh, you thought I meant testicles.

DO not tell me what I thought. Your irrelevant inference is ignorant.
ALLITERATION BITCH !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliteration

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I like when his balls fell out.

I do not like the descriptive words you used. Downvote.

Ohhh, you thought I meant testicles.


DO not tell me what I thought. Your irrelevant inference is ignorant.

ALLITERATION BITCH !